Preamble

The House met at Half-past
Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Prosecution, Nottingham

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour why he prosecuted the employer of Sarah Alterkovsky at Nottingham on 22nd October for engaging her without his consent, having regard to the fact that neither then nor since has his Department been able to offer her alternative employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The defendants were prosecuted for engaging a worker otherwise than through the exchange or an approved employment agency.

Sir J. Mellor: What was the point in undertaking this senseless and vindictive prosecution when the Ministry were unable to offer this lady any employment and subsequently allowed her to remain in her present employment?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The facts are not as suggested by the hon. Baronet. The employer was definitely informed that there was alternative employment, or employments, to offer to this young lady. He actually defied the Ministry by retaining this girl in his employment. He knew that it was contrary to the law. I am surprised that the hon. Baronet should encourage other people's constituents in this way.

Sir J. Mellor: Why did the Ministry permit this lady to remain in this employment?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We did not want to make the lady herself the victim of her employer's action. She had been in this employment for some time during

the prosecution. It was felt that, the employer having been punished, that was adequate and we ought not to impose any penalty upon the employee.

Remploy Factories

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons for the slow progress made in completing the Remploy factories programme; and how many additional factories and places are likely to be made available during 1949.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The main reasons for the rate of progress have been that suitable buildings and sites in the right places have been very hard to find and that shortages of labour and materials have delayed both new buildings and adaptations. It is hoped that about 50 Remploy factories providing places for nearly 5,000 severely disabled persons will be opened by the end of 1949 in addition to the 41 factories now open.

Mr. Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any difficulty in disposing of the products of these factories?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There has been some difficulty, but I think that we have now reached a solution of that problem.

Displaced Persons Hostel (Cats)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at one displaced persons' hostel recently evacuated, it was necessary to arrange for the humane destruction of some 20 cats which had been left behind by the occupants; and whether he can arrange in future that the keeping of cats and other pets is better controlled at such places.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not aware of the incident to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but if he will let me have particulars I will make inquiries.

Sir T. Moore: Pending the receipt of details, which I will send him, would the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is no intention to deprive these unhappy people of the companionship of any animal friends, but that it is intended merely that more care should be taken on the evacuation of hostels?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid, Sir, that it is the nocturnal activities of cats which are responsible for this position.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware that there is another misplaced persons' hostel, and will he arrange for the inhabitants to be destroyed? The address is No. 10, Downing Street.

Joint Production Committees (Scotland)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in Scotland in the establishment of joint production committees in industry.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am glad to say that the subject of joint consultation in the factory is receiving increasing attention from both sides of industry in Scotland as elsewhere. I am not, however, in a position to measure precisely at any stage the progress that has been made.

Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is almost exactly the same answer as the one I received about nine months ago; and in view of the importance of this matter could he give some indication of the difficulties which are holding up progress?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no difficulty at all. Substantial progress is being made in Scotland. The T.U.C. in Scotland have requested that the Ministry should not too actively engage in stimulating this matter as they, with the employers, are dealing with the development in their own way.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom, because of slow progress in this matter due largely to opposition from employers, there is a growing volume of opinion to the effect that this Committee should now be put on a statutory basis?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We should not agree to any statutory basis. We are satisfied that unless the joint production committees have the whole-hearted co-operation of both sides in the factory or the mill, we shall not get any success from them.

Agricultural Workers, Norfolk

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour what was the total number of unemployed agricultural workers in Norfolk for the week ended 27th November or to the nearest available date.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Figures are not available for any date later than 13th September, when the number of unemployed men registered at Employment Exchanges in Norfolk for employment as agricultural workers was 47. The corresponding number of women was 35. I will send the figures for 6th December to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as they are available.

Tourist Industry

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the report which Professor T. M. Knox has presented to the Scottish Tourist Board recommending the establishment of a Licensed Hotels Board for Scotland of which a copy has been sent to him; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have received a copy of this report, which, I understand, has been submitted by the Scottish Tourist Board to the Catering Wages Commission and the Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant Wages Board for their consideration. As regards the particular proposal for the establishment of a Licensed Hotels Board for Scotland, I am unable to vary the field of operation of a Wages Board except on the recommendation of the Catering Wages Commission.

Mr. Stewart: In view of the almost unanimous expression of opinion of the Scottish people concerned here, with which I think the Secretary of State for Scotland would agree, is it not the intention of the Minister to require the Wages Board to consider the matter and reach a decision quickly?

Mr. Ness Edwards: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour functions under the Catering Wages Act, which was passed by this House during the time of the Coalition Government, and, under the terms of that Act, he is prohibited from interfering at all until he receives a recommendation from the Catering Wages Commission.

Major Guy Lloyd: Will the Parliamentary Secretary, after consultation with his Minister, consult the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to setting up a commission to inquire into the whole question of the effect of the Catering Wages Act upon the tourist industry of Scotland, and, in so doing, will he take into account public expressions of opinion by Mr. Thomas Johnston on this subject?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to forget that the Catering Wages Commission is a permanent body established by the Coalition Government, and that it is actively considering this proposal which has been submitted to it.

Commander Galbraith: Are we to understand that the whole tourist industry of Scotland is to be left to fall into decay and that no action is being taken?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is an independent body, set up by the authority of this House, for dealing with the matter, and until the Minister receives a recommendation from that body he cannot move.

Major Lloyd: Is not the Minister in the least interested in expressions of opinion from Scotland, or must we wait for another body to dictate to Scotland?

Mr. Ness Edwards: My right hon. Friend is not indifferent to the position of the catering industry at present, but he is prohibited by Act of Parliament from interfering, and that Act was passed by the Coalition Government.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider pointing out to this body the very serious situation which has developed in Scotland on this matter? Would it be considered to be an interference with their duties to say to them, "What are you going to do on this matter, which is so urgent"?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It seems to me that hon. Members opposite do not understand what is happening. Professor Knox's Report is the result of a request from the Scottish section of the Commission, and they are now considering that report. Until they make recommendations to the Minister, he can do nothing in the matter.

Mr. Stewart: May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I first addressed this Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does it not seem amazing that this matter, highly affecting Scottish interests, should not be dealt with by the Scottish Secretary of State?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Under the Catering Wages Act, passed by the Coalition Government, the responsibility was placed upon the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Hill Cattle Subsidy (Applications)

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total number of applications for subsidy payments in 1948 under the Hill Cattle Subsidy (Scotland) Scheme; how many of these applications were received on or before 30th June, 1948; and how many were received on 1st July, 1948, and within the immediately following 13 days; and

(2)in regard to subsidy payments under the Hill Cattle Subsidy (Scotland) Scheme, whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland require 50 days in which to intimate refusal of an application on the ground of late receipt; if he is satisfied that a maximum of 28 days during a busy season in agriculture is sufficient time for farmers to prepare and lodge their applications; and if he will extend this period.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Under the Hill Cattle (Scotland) Scheme in 1948, over 13,000 application forms were received in the Department by 14th July. Of these just over 93 per cent. were received on or before 30th June, the final date prescribed in the Scheme. Four hundred and nineteen forms were received on 1st July and a further 494 during the next 13 days. I regret that it was not possible to deal with late applications immediately thereafter. This was due partly to the need to concentrate action first on the applications received in time and partly to a desire to consider carefully the rather awkward problem of late applications. I shall certainly consider the possibility of extending the period allowed to farmers to prepare and lodge their applications next year.

Mr. Snadden: While I am much obliged to the Secretary of State for saying that he will reconsider the matter, may I ask him whether the reply does not indicate that a large number of farmers just failed to get in by the due date owing to preoccupations in the month of June? Does not he agree that the time allowed was not enough, and will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Woodburn: I will look into it again, but, except for a very small group, the applications came in by the due date, and that will be the case, whatever date we fix.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the facility with which millions of pounds are put into the reclaiming of land in other parts of the world, does not the Minister think that something better should be given to the Scottish hill farmers to enable them to receive these grants more easily?

Mr. Snadden: If the right hon. Gentleman says that the numbers who failed to get in were comparatively small, surely the administrative difficulties will be very slight, and could he not make a payment to satisfy the applicants?

Mr. Mathers: In view of the small number of late applications, will not my right hon. Friend consider reviewing the position, and, in doing so, give some heed to the public services rendered by those who carried out the conditions under which the grant is earned, apart altogether from the paper work connected with it?

Mr. Woodburn: It is evident from the figures that there has not been any great difficulty, but I promise to look into the matter again next year to see if we can extend the time.

Commander Galbraith: Could not the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter sympathetically and take into consideration the small number of claims received after the due date?

Mr. Woodburn: In regard to the claims received after the due date, where there was a good reason for them coming in after the due date, they have received sympathetic consideration, and that was the reason why the grants were made, but, where there was no reason for their being received after the due date, they

had to be turned down, because, otherwise, there was no point in having a date at all.

Mr. Snadden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Agricultural Machinery and Engineering

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make on the future of the Agricultural Machinery Development Board and the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering as these bodies affect Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: As indicated in the reply of 29th November given on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), my right hon. Friend and I are reconstituting the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering as a grant-aided research Institute with an independent constitution and governing body, to operate under the scientific guidance of the Agricultural Research Council. There will be appropriate Scottish representation on the governing body. The Scottish station will continue as an integral part of the Institute, and will be administered by a special Committee of the governing body. Arrangements will also be made for the performance of certain advisory work hitherto within the scope of the Agricultural Machinery Development Board. On these changes taking place, the Board will be wound up.

Pennylands Camp, Auchinleck

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to obtain the former military camp at Pennylands Camp. Auchinleck, for housing purposes.

Mr. Woodburn: I have made arrangements with Ayr County Council for the conversion of this camp into emergency housing accommodation, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is about to release it for this purpose.

Mr. Hughes: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that, on 10th September, 1946, his Department requested the local authorities to take it over, and, in view of the lapse of time, will he say that there will be no further delay?

Mr. Woodburn: In the meantime, there were several events in the world which caused us to be a little nervous about my hon. Friend's friends elsewhere.

Mr. MacLeod: May I ask if the Minister has considered making use of any other unoccupied camps?

Building Work (Labour)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the labour force on building work for education in June, 1948, in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: Two thousand five hundred and fifty-eight men were engaged on building work for educational purposes in June.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible to make a considerable increase in this force, and, along with the efforts to increase the buildings, to take over other buildings, so that we can not only extend the present educational work, but start and conduct the junior colleges as well?

Mr. Woodburn: Any local authority which wishes to have more work done in this direction, and which will indicate from what other part of its work it is willing for building labour to be transfered, may make that suggestion, and will consider it.

Building Materials (Supplies)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken or is taking to implement the recommendations of the Laidlaw Committee in regard to increasing the supplies of building materials for Scotland.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Scottish Building Costs.

Mr. Woodburn: Action has already been taken to implement the Committee's first recommendation that in present circumstances some restriction of new commitments is necessary, and I am glad to

say that since the Committee reported there has been a general improvement in the supply of materials. As regards the other recommendations, I have brought them to the attention of the local authorities and other appropriate bodies.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a sufficient increase in the flow of materials, and that the flow is regular and not irregular at the moment, which, of course, makes the costs much higher? Is he satisfied with the progress made?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir, there has been a great improvement in that, and I am hoping it will bring down costs.

Mr. Marples: Is the Minister of the opinion that materials are the limiting factor in building houses? If not, will he say what is the limiting factor?

Mr. Woodburn: Probably the hon. Member was not present on the last two Tuesdays when an exhaustive answer was given to that question. One of the principal difficulties is the supply of certain types of labour, such as joiners and plasterers.

Major Lloyd: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is answering Question No. 15 as well, will he say what he is doing about the suggestion from the Girdwood Committee that productivity of labour in the building industry in Scotland has fallen to less than 31 per cent.? Is he doing anything to increase it?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) has just answered that question for the hon. and gallant Gentleman by pointing out that it arises from the irregularity of the flow of materials. When that improves, the costs are likely to come down.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the supply of materials has improved, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the extent that improvement may be reflected in the completion—both in the rapidity and the number of houses completed—in the next few months?

Mr. Woodburn: That depends on the building trade, but I hope there will be an improvement.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Further to that, the Minister has told us more than once that there is no shortage of materials,


and that that was not the limiting factor. Does he not know that many of us have continually had cases brought to our notice in which the shortage of materials is, indeed, the governing factor; and will he do his best to see that these shortages of materials are removed so that materials can arrive continuously at the sites?

Mr. Woodburn: I have already pointed out that the position in regard to that has already been improved. It is sometimes not the shortage of material, but the fact that it was spread over too many houses, and not concentrated on finishing the houses which were ready.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is the Minister seriously asking us to accept the suggestion that in Scotland they were building too many houses?

Mr. Woodburn: The point was that they started to build too many houses instead of completing those which were ready for completion.

Housing

Mr. Marples: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he informed a deputation of the Stirling County Council on 11th November that his aim is so to organise the building of houses in Scotland that production moves forward until a house is completed in a year or 18 months, when the Girdwood Report shows that private enterprise houses were being completed in 11.2 months in the last quarter of 1947.

Mr. Woodburn: The Girdwood Report deals with house building in England and Wales and gives no data for Scotland. I made no statement about my aims in regard to the time taken to build houses. I informed the County Council that they should not start additional building until the work in hand had been reduced to what could be completed in a year or 18 months.

Mr. Marples: Does not that indicate that Scottish builders are taking from a year to 18 months to complete a house while it is only taking 11 months in England; and is that not due to incompetence on the part of the authorities in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member must not read more into words than they say. In the main, the local authorities

in Scotland do not build houses; they are built by private enterprise to the order of local authorities, and clearly, of course, an 18-month to two-year programme is required if there is to be a steady flow of building in any community.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of permanent non-traditional houses for which contracts have been placed during 1948.

Mr. Woodburn: Orders have been placed during 1948 for 2,492 non-traditional houses.

Mr. Willis: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that with this type of house a reduction in the cost can hardly be expected if orders are not placed on a rather larger scale?

Mr. Woodburn: Orders for these houses are now placed by the local authorities. We are watching the process, and will do everything to assist in regard to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. William Ross: Can the Secretary of State tell us how many of these are aluminium houses?

Mr. Woodburn: One thousand are permanent aluminium bungalows.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to bring the building of new houses in Scotland into balance with the programme for the rest of the United Kingdom, keeping in view their respective needs.

Mr. Woodburn: The size of the housing programme depends on the capacity of the building industry to meet housing needs and the demands of other essential services. The industry is now building at the rate of about 20,000 permanent houses a year, but it has still some 40,000 under construction. The best immediate contribution towards meeting Scotland's housing needs will result from any speeding up which may be possible in the completion of these unfinished houses.

Commander Galbraith: In view of the fact that one house in four in England is built by private builders against one house in 20 in Scotland, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would


be better in the future to give the private builder more opportunities of building houses in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be under a misapprehension. Houses are being built by private enterprise in Scotland for letting purposes. I take it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the question of building houses for sale. Until the greater need is met, I am afraid we cannot relax the provisions in Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask, in view of the fact that the immediate housing target appears to have been attained in the rest of the United Kingdom, if it is possible to take steps to concentrate more actively on the solution of Scotland's housing problem?

Mr. Woodburn: I take it that the housing target to which my hon. Friend refers is the target set by the Coalition Government, which covered presumably the whole of Great Britain. To that extent, of course, Scotland has met its proportion of that housing target, but the needs in Scotland are still very great.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the inter-war years when private enterprise was unfettered and subsidised, it still built only one house for every four which the local authorities built in Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is the Secretary of State also aware that when private enterprise houses were being built, the local authorities in Glasgow under the Moderate majority built three times as many houses as they are building now under a Labour majority?

Mr. Woodburn: I should think the whole House would be pleased to know that from the point of view of the number of houses, we have beaten all housing records in Scotland this year.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses for miners and rural workers, respectively, have been allocated to Ayr County for 1949.

Mr. Woodburn: Under the 1948–49 programme, 324 houses were allocated for miners and 74 for agricultural

workers. The corresponding figures under the 1949–50 programme will be 200 and 164, respectively.

Mr. Ross: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this still leaves many rural areas and mining villages completely unprovided for?

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many non-traditional permanent houses are to be built in Scotland next year.

Mr. Woodburn: Some 14,500 nontraditional permanent houses are at present under construction and the major part will be built by the end of next year. The wishes of the local authorities concerned will determine how many of the houses included in new tenders in 1949 will be non-traditional houses, but the sponsoring firms should find it possible to start some 6,000 under programmes already arranged.

Shop Tenancies (Committee)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes there have been in the personnel of the committee appointed to consider shop tenancies in Scotland; and if the committee have so far invited evidence.

Mr. Woodburn: Sheriff H. W. Guthrie has agreed to act as chairman of the reconvened Committee of Inquiry into the Tenure of Shops and Business Premises in place of Mr. T. N. Taylor, who was recently appointed Principal of Aberdeen University. One member who is now employed in London has not been replaced, and the composition of the Committee is otherwise unaltered. The Committee who held their first meeting on 29th November are considering their future procedure.

Mrs. Mann: How can we have a quick decision if the Committee have not yet even advertised that they are prepared to receive evidence?

Mr. Woodburn: The Committee, of course, are examining all the evidence that has been placed before me during the period since they last sat, and all the shop questions which came before me in the early part of this year will be there for them to make their examination.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the terms of reference of this Committee are any wider than those of the previous Committee, and, if not, will he consider widening them in order to deal with the problem which undoubtedly exists?

Mr. Woodburn: The terms of reference were announced on 2nd November.

National Health Service (Report)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will submit a report on the work of the National Health Service in Scotland, including some detailed evidence of the earnings of doctors, dentists and opticians; and the difference in the cost of denture treatment and of artificial dentures and glasses compared with costs for similar services prior to the commencement of the National Health Service.

Mr. Woodburn: A report on the Health Service will be included in the next annual report of the Department of Health for Scotland.

Mr. Carmichael: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious increase in charges to the State and the necessity for an immediate examination? A medical officer in Scotland has already indicated that in his area dentists are now earning, on an average, £15,000 per annum. Only on Friday of last week Glasgow Corporation received a report to the effect that, while formerly they paid 8s. 4d. for school children's glasses, they are now paying £2 10s. Surely, that calls for some immediate action?

Mr. Woodburn: A great many stories go about, and there are facts accumulating which, perhaps, are a little unsettling, but these matters are receiving the careful attention of the responsible committee. In due course, they will be examined, and action taken, if necessary.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As the report of the Department of Health is not likely to be presented to the House for many months, and as the matter is urgent—for example, some doctors in my district have suffered such serious cuts in their incomes that they cannot meet their responsibilities—is there not a case for a special interim report to be made?

Mr. Woodburn: I met the representatives of the doctors on Friday, and it is rather curious that they did not mention this matter. I should have thought they would have been the first people to have brought it to our attention if it had been necessary to do so.

Mr. Carmichael: If the Minister has evidence prior to the submission of this report, has he sufficient authority to alter the conditions regarding opticians and dentists?

Mr. Woodburn: Action has already been taken with regard to one set of factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and, of course, administrative action will be taken where necessary.

Infant Mortality

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give the most recent infant mortality figures for Scotland; how these compare with England and Wales; and what steps he is taking still further to reduce the rate.

Mr. Woodburn: As the answer includes a number of figures, I shall with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


INFANT MORTALITY RATE


(Deaths of Infants under 12 months per 1,000 Live Births)


Year
Scotland
England and Wales


1947
…
…
56
41


1948—




1st Quarter
…
…
51
41


2nd Quarter
…
…
43
31


3rd Quarter
…
…
40*
28


* Provisional

The National Health Service recognises the special needs of expectant mothers and infants by requiring local health authorities to make arrangements for their care, to supplement the general services available to them. The Department of Health for Scotland maintain close contact with authorities and encourage them to keep extending and improving their arrangements so far as practicable.

Dental Officers

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what reports he has received regarding the local authorities clinical services with particular reference to the dental service and the discontentment at the staff remuneration in contrast to the incomes being earned by those engaged on similar work under the National Health Service; and what action he intends to take to ensure that all local authorities' health services are maintained on the highest level with well qualified and contented staffs.

Mr. Woodburn: I am aware that some authorities are having difficulty in maintaining their dental services at full strength because of a drift of public dental officers to general dental practice. I am encouraging the local authorities, who are the employers of public dental officers, and the dental associations to enter into negotiations about salaries. In the meantime, I should like to pay tribute to those dentists who are continuing to carry on their important work in the public service.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Ageing Pensioners

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is yet in a position to state what special steps will be taken by his Department to assist ageing pensioners, who now find their war disabilities increasingly telling against them; whether he has yet studied the provisions of the Canadian scheme for giving increasing assistance to ageing pensioners; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Blenkinsop): If war disablement becomes worse, my hon. Friend is prepared to review sympathetically the question of the amount of pension. He hopes to say something about this problem in the Debate on the Adjournment tonight. My hon. Friend is, of course, aware of the provisions of the Canadian schemes, and he is bearing these in mind, together with all other relevant information in considering the problem of the ageing pensioner.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the fact that it appears to be the Government's policy not to do anything to

increase the basic rate in order to meet the rising cost of living, but rather to help by way of special allowances in cases that need most help, does not the hon. Gentleman think that a strong case can be made out for giving special assistance to these pensioners as they grow older?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We are aware of the problem, and we hope to discuss it and related problems with the Central Advisory Committee later.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay postwar credits in such cases as are mentioned in the Question?

Artificial Limbs

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions how many private firms were manufacturing artificial limbs in July last; how many have now entered into contract to supply artificial limbs under the National Insurance Act; and how many persons insured under the National Insurance Scheme have chosen to be fitted with an artificial limb or limbs from any of these new contracting firms.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In July last there were 19 private firms manufacturing artificial legs in addition to the main contractor to the Ministry. Of these, 13 have now entered into contract with my Department to supply patients under the National Health Service Act and negotiations are proceeding with three others. Up to 19th November, 597 National Health Service patients have chosen to be fitted with artificial limbs made by one or other of 11 of these firms. The contracts with the remaining two firms were only recently concluded.

WAR GRAVES (RELATIVES' VISITS)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now allow relatives to visit the graves of Service men buried in Italy.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): No permission from me is required for relatives to visit graves in Italy.

Mr. Shephard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what schemes there are whereby poor relatives can undertake a journey to Italy to visit the graves of their sons?

Mr. Shinwell: The voluntary organisations have this matter in hand. They are partly subsidised from Government funds. In the case of Italy, however, they cannot make arrangements at present.

Mr. Shephard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some months ago he wrote to me concerning a constituent of mine, and said that it was quite impossible at the moment for relatives to visit their sons' graves?

Mr. Shinwell: That was some months ago.

Mr. Guy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that relatives can get no information whatsoever with regard to visiting graves?

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend, no doubt, has certain people in mind, and perhaps they will approach him and be can then approach me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What is the objection to extending the Government's scheme so as to include this soft currency country with its ample hotel accommodation?

Mr. Shinwell: There are several reasons, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

Mr. Shephard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give particulars of how these people are able to visit Italy?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will give him whatever information I can.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will provide free travel to parents wishing to pay an annual visit to their sons' war graves.

Mr. Shinwell: Arrangements for visits to war graves are made by five charitable bodies who, in cases of need, make grants towards the expenses of a single visit by two relatives. The organisations are reimbursed from public funds to the extent of seven-eighths of their direct expenditure. I do not consider that the scheme should be extended as suggested in the Question.

Mr. Lipson: Is not the Secretary of State aware that a great many people object to a means test and that a means test is particularly undesirable in a matter of this kind? Will he consider whether he cannot accept more responsibility in this matter so as to see that whatever provision is made, all people are treated alike and are not subject to a means test?

Mr. Shinwell: It is quite impossible to concur in the view expressed by the hon. Member in the Question that free travel should be granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Local Authorities (Training Leave)

Mr. Shephard: asked the Secretary of State for War if all local authorities grant leave with pay to their employees who are territorials during their annual training.

Mr. Shinwell: Local authorities are generally co-operative, although there are variations in the concessions which they are prepared to make. Generally speaking, the majority are offering an extra week with pay, others are offering an extra week with the difference between Army pay and allowances and civil pay in cases in which the latter is greater, while a few are giving leave without pay.

Mr. Shephard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on two occasions, once at the Mansion House and once in this House, he has given the impression that all local authorities are paying the salaries of their employees? Will he please answer this specific question: Are all local authorities doing this?

Mr. Shinwell: I know of no local authority which is not co-operative.

Sir T. Moore: Has a decision yet been reached in regard to the nationalised services?

Mr. Shinwell: That is obviously another question.

Efficiency Medal

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War when the issue of Territorial Efficiency medals will be recommenced.

Mr. Shinwell: The issue of the Efficiency Medal to other ranks has never ceased; in fact, the rate of issue has recently been increased. As regards officers, as soon as the new conditions of award are approved, medals will be issued as supplies permit to those entitled.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the distribution of these medals could be timed to coincide with the Territorial Army recruiting campaign, that campaign might benefit?

Mr. Shinwell: There has been an issue at the rate of 2,000 a month, but I understand there are many difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Irish Regiments

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement regarding the future of traditional Irish Regiments in the British Army.

Mr. Shinwell: No changes are envisaged in the future of these Regiments.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the three Southern Irish Regiments were disbanded after the so-called Treaty with the Free State in 1921, and that the existing Regiments are traditionally associated with Ulster and are recruited in Ulster, with one possible partial exception?

Mr. Shinwell: I am very glad to be enlightened on these matters, but it does not make any difference to my answer.

Camp, Newark

Mr. Shephard: asked the Secretary of State for War if the Bowbridge Road Camp at Newark has now been handed over to the Ministry of Works for reallocation.

Mr. Shinwell: Instructions have been issued that the part of the camp needed for housing is to be released by my Department by the end of the year.

Discharge by Purchase (Clothing)

Mr. McAdam: asked the Secretary of State for War why regular soldiers who purchase their discharge are called

upon to surrender the whole of their Army clothing; are not provided with any civilian clothing; and have to pay their own transport fare from their Service depot to their home.

Mr. Shinwell: A soldier who purchases his discharge is required to pay a sum of money to the War Department in order to be allowed to break his contract. It would hardly be reasonable to give the benefits which he would have received if he had fulfilled the contract. As regards the first part of the Question, however, soldiers discharged by purchase are allowed to keep some articles of Army clothing.

Mr. McAdam: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the soldier who was called up in 1940, was decorated for special service in the field, opted to take on for a period as a Regular serving soldier, and ultimately is compelled to purchase his discharge after rising to the rank of warrant officer because of the ill-health of his wife, is entitled to the same treatment as the National Service man?

Mr. Shinwell: He is in quite a different category from that of the National Service man. He wishes to be discharged from the Army and he must accept the conditions which obtain in consequence of that discharge.

Disability Pensions

Mr. Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for War how many disability pensions are administered direct by his Department.

Mr. Shinwell: About 7,500. In addition there are some 4,500 awards to former members of local contingents raised overseas.

Mr. Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken or proposes to take to ensure that all disability pensioners for whom his Department is responsible are made aware of all the allowances and services to which they may now be entitled.

Mr. Shinwell: Whenever a case is reviewed, admissible allowances are given without application, and the attention of the pensioner is called to any apparent entitlements. In addition, circulars have been issued to pensioners in certain cases.


I am considering the issue of a comprehensive pamphlet similar to that now being issued by the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. Symonds: In order to make sure that these men or women 'get whatever personal advice and help they need, would my right hon. Friend consider asking the Minister of Pensions to put the services of his welfare officers at their disposal?

Mr. Shinwell: I will look into that.

Married Quarters

Brigadier Head: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of married quarters available in the United Kingdom for officers and other ranks of the Army, respectively; the number of such married quarters at present unoccupied awaiting repair; the number of married quarters at present under construction; and the number of officers and men whose names are at present on a waiting list for married quarters.

Mr. Shinwell: On 1st November there were 1,559 married officers' quarters and 14,551 married soldiers' quarters in the United Kingdom. Of these, 55 married officers' quarters and 704 married soldiers' quarters were vacant awaiting repair. A further 44 married officers' quarters and 586 married soldiers' quarters were under construction, and in addition 488 huts were being converted into temporary married quarters. One thousand two hundred and thirty-three officers and 3,507 soldiers had their names on waiting lists for married quarters. These figures refer to War Department married quarters only and exclude any quarters provided for Regulars serving with the Territorial Army.

Brigadier Head: As the situation in this respect is far from satisfactory and as Army personnel cannot be very vocal in registering their protests, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the extra responsibility which devolves upon him to use all his natural vocal talent in putting the matter before the Cabinet and the Minister of Health so as to improve the position?

Mr. Shinwell: I am fully aware of the difficulties and I have made representations in the proper quarter, but we are

confronted by very serious physical difficulties in respect of materials and labour.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that the bulk of the houses now awaiting repair were built during the Crimean War and that they would not be much use at the present time without a great expenditure of money?

Mr. Shinwell: Some may have been built during the Crimean War, but I think some are late Victorian.

Brigadier Glubb

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for War on what date consent was given by the Army Council, in accordance with Article 100 of the Pay Warrant, 1940, for Brigadier J. B. Glubb, an officer of the Regular Army Reserve, to enter the service of a foreign power, namely, the Hashimite Kingdom of Transjordan.

Mr. Shinwell: As has been explained to the hon. Member, Brigadier Glubb is no longer a member of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, having passed the age for liability to recall in April, 1947. He had previously served under the Colonial Office in Iraq and Trans-jordan since 1926, and was so serving when the latter country ceased to be British Mandated Territory and attained its independence in 1946. He remained with the concurrence of the Army Council until he ceased to be liable to recall.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As the official answers which the Secretary of State has mentioned just now have described this soldier as being a Colonial administrator, alternatively as owing obligation to the War Office and the Army Council, alternatively as being a mercenary servant to a private chieftain and elsewhere as officially seconded to the Forces of the king of a foreign Power, is it not quite clear that the Secretary of State is helping the Foreign Office to connive at the work of this soldier who is leading a war of aggression?

Mr. Shinwell: All I can say is that this soldier is not on my pay roll. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose pay roll?"] He is not on the Government's pay roll. He is not on the War Office list. I thought hon. and gallant Members opposite would


understand what I meant. I therefore have no control over him and, as regards conniving with the Foreign Office in matters of aggression, I repudiate that entirely.

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to understand from that reply that the Secretary of State makes an indignant repudiation of having his name associated with the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Shinwell: I am associated with the Foreign Office because I am a Member of the Government.

Commissions (Resignations)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers have resigned their commissions since 1st May, 1947.

Mr. Shinwell: Some 1,470 Regular and short service Regular officers have been permitted to retire or resign since 1st May, 1947, including those who had reached the normal age for retirement of their rank.

Sir W. Smithers: Is this not evidence that many officers have no respect for, and no confidence in, the present Secretary of State for War?

Release Dates (Groups)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War why 19066467 L /Cpl. C. M. Richer, O.P.S. Section, Vienna Signal Troop, Vienna Signal Squadron, B.T.A., whose term of service should have ended on 14th September, 1948, and was extended for three months to 14th December, is now only due to be demobilised on 28th December; how many others of the same group are in a similar position; and if he will get these young men home to their parents in time for Christmas.

Mr. Shinwell: This non-commissioned officer is in age and service group 77. The original release dates for this group were 1st October to 26th October. Since release has been postponed for three months in accordance with the Government announcement made on 15th September, the new release dates for the group are 31st December to 26th January. There are approximately 11,000

officers and men of the same group due to be released between these dates. The House will appreciate that it would not be possible to accelerate the release of one particular group.

Mr. Teeling: As the Minister says that the release dates start on 31st December, and as he is already releasing this boy on the 28th December, would it not be possible to bring the release forward for these extra few days? These boys have not been home for Christmas for two or three years to meet the rest of their families.

Mr. Shinwell: I am informed that it is possible that some of them may be lucky enough to reach home before Christmas.

Pennylands Camp, Auchinleck

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the cause of the delay in handing over Pennylands Camp, Auchinleck, to the Ayrshire County Council for housing purposes; and when the camp is to be handed over.

Mr. Shinwell: This camp is not now needed by my Department, and I have arranged for its release.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State also consider seriously the possibility of abandoning the prosecution of the miners whose action pushed the War Office to this decision?

Mr. Shinwell: That is quite a different question.

GERMAN GENERALS (TRIALS)

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost of the prosecution of Field Marshal Runstedt and the other German generals; and what sum is being assigned to pay for the generals' defence.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not yet possible to make any reliable estimate of the total cost of these trials, as this will depend largely on the time taken in the very large amount of preparatory work still to be done and the length of the actual trials. As regards the last part of the


Question, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that for similar reasons it is not possible to estimate the costs of the defence. These costs, if they cannot be met by the individuals themselves, will be borne by the German authorities.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that these officers have been deprived of their pensions and all resources? Will not the Secretary of State, in common justice, see that adequate funds are provided?

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that so far, two German counsel have been engaged for each of the accused and that they will be paid a certain amount while so engaged.

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the social and legal implications of the practice of human artificial insemination, including A.I.(D.), with special reference to the problems of legitimacy and inheritance involved; or extend the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Population to include this subject.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I should prefer first to see the general Report of the Royal Commission on Population, which I understand is in the final stages of drafting.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an answer given on behalf of the Attorney-General yesterday on these matters it was said that the question of an inquiry into the legal implications of this decision was being considered? Does the present answer mean it is not being considered until after the Royal Commission on Population has reported?

The Prime Minister: I said in regard to the setting up of any Royal Commission that I should prefer to see the general Report of the Royal Commission on Population.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Capital Investment Programme (Scotland)

Mr. McFarlane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion

of the Capital Investment Programme under the Economic Survey for 1948 is to be carried out in Scotland; and what does this represent in terms of current money values.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is not possible to analyse all kinds of investment by areas, but for those programmes where the Scotttish share can be distinguished, it is estimated, very roughly, that in 1948 gross investment in fixed capital will be about £140 million, or between 10 per cent. and 11 per cent. of the corresponding total for the United Kingdom.

Mr. McFarlane: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is erroneous and misleading to speak of a capital investment programme for Scotland as such?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly. It would not be possible to distinguish.

Mr. Maclay: Were the figures given arrived at after consultation in Scotland with any organisations outside the Scottish Office?

Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the Scottish Office is in constant consultation with many organisations.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, while removing Purchase Tax by S.I., No. 2398, of 1948, on rubber flooring, tiles or strips not exceeding 450 square inches in area, he has retained Purchase Tax at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. on larger tiles or rubber flooring in rolls.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in reply to a similar Question on 6th December.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer himself to the supplementary question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) on the Question? Is he now aware that the effect of this arrangement is simply to induce the cutting of rubber strips into many bits of rubber small enough to avoid taxation?

Sir S. Cripps: I have seen the supplementary question which was put on that occasion. I do not agree with the implication.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that owners of wireless sets in places where electricity is not available have to buy a new high tension battery once every two months and so pay Purchase Tax six times a year; and will he consider giving them some relief from a tax which hits them more hardly than it does the owners of electrically-controlled sets.

Sir S. Cripps: As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said when this matter was raised on the Adjournment on 28th July, it is one that we shall bear in mind.

Customs Examination

Mr. Hollis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that travellers leaving this country are asked by the customs official their reason for so doing; and what is the authority of the customs officials for making this request.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purpose his currency control officials at ports ask British subjects who have been granted the ordinary tourist allowance why they are going abroad.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why currency control officials at ports of embarkation ask British subjects to give the reason for their going abroad.

Sir S. Cripps: Some inquiry into the circumstances of a journey abroad is occasioned by the varying necessity for restrictions upon the export of goods and currency according to whether the traveller is a resident or a visitor and is proceeding to a sterling or non-sterling area. But Customs officers have no authority to go beyond the limits determined by their responsibility for securing compliance with these restrictions.

Mr. Hollis: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by that, that they have the right to ask people where they are going and the reason for their journeys, or not?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, where there are regulations, for instance, that make a difference whether they are going to a sterling or non-sterling area, they must be able to ask.

Mr. Hollis: But to ask for the reason for the journey as distinct from the destination?

Sir S. Cripps: I did not suggest they should ask the reasons for the journey.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that is the common practice?

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the case I sent him, the officials went beyond those limits, and that travellers resent intrusion into their private affairs, which may be very private?

Sir S. Cripps: I can appreciate that, and I think it was in that case that I asked them to apologise if there had been any excess of zeal on the part of the Customs officers.

Mr. Keeling: I have not heard a word from the Chancellor.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when going to Southern Ireland I have been more than once asked how long I was to he there, and that on one occasion I was asked how much money I was taking out.

Sir S. Cripps: It may be necessary to ask how long, because if people are going permanently, they have the right to take more than if they are only going temporarily.

Currency Transfers (France)

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he personally investigates and approves the authorisation of every transfer or at least the most important transfers of sterling to charitable or political funds or bodies in France.

Sir S. Cripps: I accept full personal responsibility for all decisions taken by the Treasury.

Mr. Nicholson: Of course, as head of a Department the right hon. and learned Gentleman must do that. What I asked him is if he personally investigates and approves the transfer, or the most important transfers. May I have an answer to that Question?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid it is not possible, because in the ordinary course of administration some cases may be


decided in one way and some in another. However, I take full responsibility for them all.

Mr. Nicholson: That is perfectly proper. Does not, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman think upon reflection that he has made a great mistake in adopting the practice of supporting, at his own sweet will, certain political parties in a foreign country? Is it not a dangerous departure from precedent?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel himself that it is a very serious duty for his Department? I accept the fact that he accepts personal responsibility, but is it not a very invidious duty to impose on his Department?

Sir S. Cripps: If people ask that money should be transferred the Department has to give an answer one way or another.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he himself laid down what we regard as an unsatisfactory rule for trying to decide which organisations should receive this money?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.

Mr. Pickthorn: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the "ordinary course of administration" does he mean to imply that it is part of the ordinary course of administration that an administrative control over exchange export should be exercised in view of party political considerations?

Sir S. Cripps: It means that according to ordinary administrative practice some questions are decided by some officials and others by others.

Sir W. Smithers: And the answer is a lemon.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Are we to assume that these investigations led the Chancellor to believe the Communist suggestion that £1000 from Scotland was to go to charitable purposes?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the Chancellor takes full responsibility for this, how can he justify, or even attempt

to justify, the use of the great national weapon of exchange control for party political purposes?

Sir S. Cripps: If the noble Lord will put that question down I will answer it.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if this morning's news is to be believed, Transport House is to throw its money down the drain?

Mr. Nicholson: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Estate Duty Office (Transfer)

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is intended to remove the Estate Duty Office to Worthing; and whether he will review this intention.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the anxiety felt amongst solicitors over the proposal to remove the Estate Duty Office to Worthing; and if he will reconsider this proposal and arrange for this office to be located in Central London as it was up to the time of the late war.

Sir S. Cripps: Any difficulties caused by this move are outweighed, in my view, by the need to reduce the concentration of the working population in London.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the fact that it will cause very considerable trouble and expense to many solicitors and their clients in London and in the provinces when they have no opportunity of going down for interviews at Worthing? Will he take this matter seriously?

Sir S. Cripps: It has been taken very seriously.

Mr. Janner: But more seriously than it has been taken?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many officials are involved in this transfer?

Sir S. Cripps: I could not.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in normal times a great deal of work is done in this Department—if I may use the expression—"over the counter"? Is he aware that this proposal to remove the office to Worthing, far from encouraging this good practice, will greatly increase the length of time taken in administering estates, when much of the work has to be done by post?

Sir S. Cripps: We have had long experience of this. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, this Department has been out of London a long time.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in Worthing there is an appalling shortage of houses at the moment, and that there are some 6,000 people in Hove and Brighton awaiting houses?

Sir S. Cripps: This move is not likely to take place for some considerable time.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that solicitors in London and in many parts of the provinces can get to Harrow in a day, whereas they may not be able to get to Worthing in that time?

Sir S. Cripps: The office was at Llandudno for a long time.

Foreign Travel (Currency Allowance)

Mr. Janner: asked the chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that number of parents in Leicester and elsewhere, of women who married American or Canadian ex-Service men, are unable to visit their children because those parents are unable to take with them the necessary money to pay for their maintenance during visits; and whether he will take steps to remedy the position.

Sir S. Cripps: In our present dollar position we cannot afford private travel

in America or Canada except on hardship or compassionate grounds, such as illness. In such cases I am always prepared to consider a special allotment of currency. While, therefore, I sympathise with the feelings of the parents concerned, I should not be justified in giving preferential treatment to one particular class of the population.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the fact that there is considerable feeling about this matter not only in Leicester, but throughout the country; and that at a recent meeting in Leicester every person who was present stated that children could not have their parents in America unless they were able to bring money in themselves? Would he reconsider this matter?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that quite a number of hardships are caused by shortage of dollars, and this is one of them.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether these people would be likely to obtain favourable consideration of their applications if they said that they were going abroad for purposes of Socialist propaganda?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the noble Lord would put that question on the Order Paper.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to make a short personal statement. On page 677 of the Votes and Proceedings for 6th December my name appears, owing to a printing error—I attach no blame to any one—to a Motion on Palestine with which I am not in agreement. It should appear on page 696, No. 31 of 7th December, No. 9. I only wish to have it on record that my name should not have appeared on the first Motion which I have mentioned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes 239; Noes 99.

DivisionNo.33.]
AYES
[3.32p.m


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W)


Alpass, J H
Follick, M.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Foot, M M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Attewell, H C.
Forman, J C.
Mort, D. L


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Murray, J. D


Awbery, S S
Gallacher, W
Naylor, T. E


Ayles, W H
Ganley, Mrs C. S
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bacon, Miss A
Gibson, C W
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Balfour, A
Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J (Derby)


Barton, C
Granville, E. (Eye)
Oldfield, W. H


Bechervaise, A. E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Oliver, G. H


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
Orbach, M.


Berry, H
Grenfell, D. R.
Paget, R. T.


Beswick, F.
Grey, C. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Binns, J
Grierson, E
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)


Blackburn, A. R
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parker, J.


Blenkinsop, A
Griffiths, Rt Hon. J (Llanelly)
Parkin, B. T.


Blyton, W R
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, A. G.
Guest, Dr L. Haden
Pearson, A


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Gunter, R. J
Perrins, W


Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Guy, W H
Piratin, P.


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Popplewell, E.


Brook, D (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J
Pursey, Comdr H


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Haworth, J.
Randall, H E.


Bruce, Maj D. W. T
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Ranger, J


Burden, T W
Henderson Joseph (Ardwick)
Rankin, J.


Burke, W A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Reid, T (Swindon)


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Horabin, T. L
Rhodes, H.


Carmichael, James
Hoy, J.
Richards, R


Chamberlain, R A
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Champion, A J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Chater, D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Rogers, G. H R


Cluse, W. S
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, F. S
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Royle, C


Collindridge, F
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Sargood, R.


Collins, V J
Janner, B.
Scott-Elliott, W


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jay, D P. T.
Segal, Dr. S.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Johnston, Douglas
Sharp, Granville


Corlett, Dr. J.
Keenan, W
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Cove, W. G
Kenyon, C
Skeffington, A M


Crawley, A
King, E. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Crossman, R H S
Kinley, J
Skinnard, F W.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Daggar, G
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)


Daines, P.
Lang, G
Snow, J W.


Davies, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery)
Lawson, Rt Hon. J
Solley, L J


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, F (Hulme)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Leslie, J R
Stross, Dr B.


Davies, R J (Westhoughton)
Lewis, A W J (Upton)
Stubbs, A. E


Davies, S O (Merthyr)
Lewis, T (Southampton)
Swingler, S


Deer, G.
Lipson D L
Sylvester, G. O


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt-Col M
Symonds, A L


Driberg, T E. N.
Logan, D G
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Longden, F
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)


Dumpleton, C. W
McAdam, W
Taylor, Dr S (Barnet)


Dye, S.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
McKay, J (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edelman, M
McLeavy, F
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
MacMillan, M. K.(Western Isles)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, Rt Hon. Sir C (Bedwellty)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Tiffany, S


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Macpherson, T (Romford)
Timmons, J


Edwards, Rt Hon N (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tolley, L.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mallalieu, E. L (Brigg)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mann, Mrs. J
Walker, G. H.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Marquand, H. A.
Warbey, W N


Evans, S N (Wednesbury)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Watson, W M


Ewart, R
Mellish, R J
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Fairhurst, F
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, D


Farthing, W. J
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


Fernyhough, E
Merley, R
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)




White, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Williams, J L (Kelvingrove)
Wyatt, W.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Williams, R. W (Wigan)
Yates, V. F


Wigg, George
Willis, E
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wilkins, W A
Will, Mrs. E. A.



Willey, F T (Sunderland)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willey, O G.(Cleveland)
Woods, G. S.
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P G
Galbraith, Comdr, T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)


Astor, Hon. M
Galbraith, T. G D (Hillhead)
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Baldwin, A E
Gates, Maj E. E
Nicholson, G.


Beechman, N A
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Nield, B. (Chester)


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, R V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Boles, Lt-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harvey Air-Comdre. A V
Nutting, Anthony


Bower, N.
Head, Brig A H
Orr-Ewing, I L


Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, K


Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H V


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hollis, M C.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon R. S. (Southport)
Savory, Prof. D L


Bullock, Capt M
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Scott, Lord W.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Shephard, S (Newark)


Challen, C
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smithers, Sir W


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jennings, R
Snadden, W M


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keeling, E H.
Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)
Langford-Holt, J
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Lucas, Major Sir J
Sutcliffe, H


Crowder, Capt John E
Macdonald, Sir P.(I, of Wight)
Teeling, William


Cuthbert, W N
McFarlane, C. S
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Davidson, Viscountess
Mckie, J. H (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E P (Monmouth)


De la Bère, R
Maclay, Hon J S
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Digby, S. W
MacLeod, J.
Touche, G C


Drayson, G B
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C
Manningham-Buller, R E
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eden, Rt. Hon A
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Winterton Rt. Hon Earl


Fletcher, W (Bury)
Marshall, S H. (Sutton)
York, C.


Fox, Sir G.
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick)


Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J



Fraser Sir I (Lonsdale)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir H
Brigadier Mackeson and




Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase resulting from any of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the expenses which, under paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, are to be defrayed out of moneys so provided.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Act to claims arising otherwise than out of war service.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.42 p.m.

Commander Noble: Unfortunately, I was unable to be present during the Second Reading Debate, and there is one point relative to this Clause which I should like to put to the Minister. It concerns the need for Service Departments to work in very close liaison with the Ministry of Pensions in supplying the information needed on behalf of appellants to these tribunals. As the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know, about two years ago I was very interested in the case of an Army officer who had died very suddenly. I wrote to the Minister of that day—now the Postmaster-General—suggesting that perhaps this was a case where death was due to war causes, but the Minister informed me that this officer's death was neither due to nor hastened by war service. Now, that was not my view; nor was it the view of medical advice that I took; nor was it the view of officers who served with the man concerned.
I therefore advised the widow to appeal to the tribunal, and to seek legal advice. I myself wrote to the general on whose staff the officer had served and, with the aid of the Army List, to practically every officer who had served with the officer at

the time. The replies I received showed that this officer had worked very long hours under great strain at a most difficult period of the war. Those replies were forwarded to the tribunal, which arranged for a hearing on a date about 14 months after the officer's death. The hearing was postponed, a week before it was due to take place; the case was then withdrawn by the Ministry and the widow informed that her husband's death was attributed to war service, in consequence of which she received a much larger pension.
I maintain that the information which the widow and I took the trouble to collect could very easily have been obtained and put forward by the War Office itself. As a result of this long delay of about 18 months the widow was caused a great deal of worry, both financially and otherwise. Now that this system is to be applied in peace time to widows and all officers and men, as it applied in the war, I hope that there will be good co-operation between the Service Ministries and the Ministry of Pensions.

3.45 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I notice that in replying to the Second Reading Debate the Minister of Pensions said:
It is quite evident … that the tribunals shall be constituted independently of the Minister of Pensions, and that they shall consider cases by all the methods that the courts normally adopt to collect and consider evidence.
Later on he said:
It would be possible to speed up the work by giving very arbitrary and more rapid rejections so far as the Ministry is concerned, but that would be a most undesirable thing to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November. 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1565–6.]
I agree with the Minister, but I would point out that this Bill, which is intended to amend the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, leaves in being the very thing the Minister says he does not want.
I have here a letter, which came to me only late yesterday evening, so that I have not had an opportunity of putting down an Amendment to deal with the point at issue. The letter, dated 8th April, from the Ministry of Pensions to the Polish Combatants' Association, says:
Special arrangements have, however, been made under which appeals from members of the Polish Forces against decisions of the Ministry are dealt with administratively.


I am not at the moment arguing whether or not the Poles should be treated differently from the British; but I am arguing that the Ministry is apparently saying openly that it has established machinery which has considerable arbitrary powers, and which is under the Ministry itself. That is precisely what the Minister said during Second Reading he did not approve of so far as pensions appeals were concerned.
I imagine that this Bill is simply to amend the Pensions Appeals Tribunals Act, 1943, without specifying in the Title of the Bill what those amendments should be. It will be perfectly in order at a later stage for the Minister to make an Amendment to deal with this specific point. I have heard from the Poles themselves that they are extremely grateful to the Minister for what he has done for them under the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947. They do not complain about that at all. All they complain about now is that they have no appeals machinery such as British pensioners have. They consider that they ought to be allowed an appeal to an independent tribunal in just the same way as members of the British Forces who fought alongside them. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind. Perhaps at a later stage the Government can arrange to introduce a new Clause to deal with this matter. There is an anomaly at present, which I am certain is contrary to the desire of the Minister himself if he expressed his real feelings during the Second Reading Debate.

Sir Ian Fraser: Does it follow from the passage of this Bill and the extension of appeal tribunals to soldiers, sailors and airmen hurt during peace time, between wars so to speak, that the whole procedure for granting pensions to these men, hospitalising and looking after them, will also become the duty of the Ministry of Pensions? In my opinion the Ministry performs that duty far better than the Service Departments ever did, and it would be well for these men that the whole service of caring for them, as well as the conduct of appeals on their behalf, should pass to the Ministry. Since I was not here during the Second Reading Debate I should like now to offer my congratulations to the Minister on introducing this Bill, which I wish a speedy passage.

Mr. Gallacher: I received a circular letter this morning from a lad in Ipswich, I think his name is Baker, no doubt other Members have received a similar letter—who will be adversely affected under this Bill. His claims that those up to 1922 who were in the first world war, or associated with it, will come under the scheme, but that those between then and 1939 will not. He wants to know if anything can be done for him and others who are affected like him.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I wish to say a word on this Clause, which introduces a change that is welcomed by all ex-Service men's organisations interested in altering the procedure for claiming disability pensions. The Minister is probably aware that during the past 18 months, and since the passage into law of the National Service Act, 1947, I have put a number of questions to him and to his two predecessors on this point regarding the right of appeal to a tribunal. For that reason, I am very glad that this Measure has been introduced, and that this Clause will cover not only National Service men, but all the men and women at present in the Regular Forces and those who may join the Regular Forces at some future date. I was unable to be present at the Second Reading owing to a long-standing engagement in my constituency, but since then I have had an opportunity of discussing this Bill with the principal officials of the British Legion in Scotland, which is a separate body to the British Legion in England. They welcome this Clause and trust, as I do, that it will soon be made law.

Professor Savory: I wish to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has said with regard to giving Poles the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. The Minister is well aware that, under the Polish Resettlement Act, pensions are accorded to Poles and that the only discrimination between them and British soldiers is in regard to the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. The Poles are very sensitive on this matter. These men who fought so gallantly at Cassino, without whom Viscount Alexander has said we could not have won the war in


Italy, consider that they should be treated on the same footing as the British soldier. I am aware that the Minister said arrangements will be made for appeals to be dealt with administratively, but the Poles do not want that; they want to have the same right of appeal to an independent tribunal as the British soldiers.

Commander Pursey: It is only right that it should be said from this side that we are entirely in support of this Measure, which is long overdue. I will not go into the question of the organisations responsible for this reform, although certain organisations have been mentioned by Members opposite for propaganda reasons. The reason why this Bill has been introduced is not because of the ex-Service men's organisations, but because we have a Labour Government in power and a Ministry of Pensions which has been more considerate to the ex-Service men and has introduced more far-reaching reforms than any other Ministry during the 20 years between the wars. It is only right that this should go on record, and that we on this side should also place on record our complete support for this Bill and for doing the utmost possible for ex-Service men and their dependants, consistent with reason, common sense and consideration for other members of the community.

Earl Winterton: The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) is singular in two respects. He believes he is the only Member who understands the ex-Service men, and the only Member who, either on Second Reading or during the Committee stage, has introduced a party note into our discussions. If he reads the report of the Second Reading Debate, he will see that he is not supported by any of his colleagues. I think the kindest thing is to take no notice of his observations, which are based on an entirely false assumption.
I wish to stress the two points made by my hon. and gallant Friends. I am sure that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), who expressed the need for the facilitation of applications and consideration by the tribunal. I know that there are difficulties in this respect and that the

question is a difficult and complicated one. My hon. and gallant Friend quoted the experience he had had with one case, and other Members could give similar examples. There is need for improvement of the machinery with regard to the question of the Poles, and I strongly support the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that something should he done to make their position easier.
The main effect of this Clause is to put ex-Service men of the last war and those now serving in the Army on the same basis as those who served in the 1914 war. As I said on Second Reading, the main lacuna is that the Bill excludes all those who were in the Services between the wars. It is only fair to say that, in advocating further consideration of this on Second Reading, I admitted that there were administrative difficulties, but I support the contention that further consideration should be given from both sides. I have thought the matter over since the Second Reading Debate, and, despite the administrative difficulties, I cannot help feeling that those who served in the Forces between the wars will feel a sense of grievance in being excluded. Many of them took part in arduous active service on the North-West Frontier of India and elsewhere, and I am wondering whether, even at this late hour, the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way, to include them in the Bill.
This Bill marks a further improvement in the system of granting pensions, an improvement which, despite what the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull has said, is not a party matter and has been going on ever since the creation of the Ministry of Pensions. That improvement would be made more synthetical if the men to whom I have referred could be brought into the Bill, and I very much hope that the appeal which has been made on these lines from both sides will be considered by the Minister.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): When the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) are in alliance, it is a little difficult to resist them, but I am afraid that I cannot hold out hope this afternoon of making the radical change in the Bill that would be necessary to include


the men serving in the Forces between the two wars. We had a fairly long Debate on this subject during the Second Reading, and I do not want to repeat the speech I then made. 1 have considered the matter very carefully since then, in the light of what has been said, but I feel that this would be administratively far too difficult a task to undertake.
I said on the Second Reading that these claims were decided between the wars under a Royal Warrant and a code of pensions entitlement entirely different from that which operates now. Under that code disability had to be attributable to service. There was no mention of aggravation, though I understand some of my Service colleagues have paid pensions where material aggravation was shown.
There was no onus of proof on the Department and no law of compelling presumption. We should have to take over the administration of thousands of cases outside our code of entitlement. I find no one knows the figure of cases which could become the subject of appeals if we were to try to apply to those cases the code of entitlement which now applies, because no one has got a record of all the rejections that were made. It would undoubtedly be thousands, but it is one more example of the difficulty frequently encountered in this Department—when one makes an improvement in the future everyone wants to see it extended to the past. There are times when, with the best will in the world, that proves to be administratively impracticable. This is one of those cases.
We are not proposing to take away from those people who served between the wars any of the rights that they possessed. They can still appeal to the Minister or the Department concerned, and I am sure, in the light of the representations that have been made during the two Debates, that the Service Ministers will certainly be prepared to look again at cases in which hon. Members feel that some injustice has been done. We are not taking away rights from others, but we are conferring rights on men who are serving and are giving rights to future soldiers which will be of benefit to them. In that, of course, I include airmen and seamen. I was grateful to

the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) for the implied tribute to my Department when he said that it is more satisfactory to have these things dealt with in the future by the Minister of Pensions and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole of our administration will apply in future to National Service men. They will be entitled as serving men to all our services, including our hospital service, rehabilitation and our welfare service.

Sir I. Fraser: What about the Regular man?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, certainly, he is included. I meant all men who were serving. I said the National Service man, but I made it clear during the Second Reading Debate that this Bill applies to the Regular volunteer just as much as it does to the National Service man. Hospitalisation and all other such services, including all the constructive services which we provide, will apply to all.
I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and other Members whether I could give an assurance that in the future adequate medical records would be available for the tribunals to consider these cases. I said on Second Reading—and I repeat it gladly now—that we shall do all in our power in future to see that adequate records are kept. I do not know about the case to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. Such an incident does from time to time occur, especially when the service took place many years ago and it has been impossible to trace the records. I do not think that many instances of that kind could occur where the service took place comparatively recently. The records are now kept, I am assured, in a very satisfactory way. We have the advantage of the photostat machinery which enables repeated duplication of records and makes it so much easier to multiply records and keep and store them in a satisfactory way. All the Army records are in our possession in a store near our office in Cheltenham.

Commander Noble: May I thank the Minister for his reply on that point? The point I was trying to make was not so much about medical cards as Service records. If, in the case which I have quoted, the War Office had stated the


type of job the officer was doing at that time I do not think there was any doubt that the case would have been dealt with much earlier.

Mr. Marquand: While on the subject of records I must pass to the representations made about the Poles. The Polish Forces are dealt with under a special Act of Parliament passed for that purpose, and the main reason why we have not been able to allow cases of the Polish Armed Forces to go through our regular procedure of appeals machinery is that the records in those cases are not available. It is because we do not have complete records for those Forces as we do in respect of our own Forces that we find ourselves unable to provide appeals machinery of that kind.
I hope the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) did not misunderstand what I said on the Second Reading. I then said that it would be possible for me to speed up the preparation of cases for the appeals tribunal by making rejections rather quickly or even arbitrarily, but I did not mean by saying that to suggest for one moment that we would ever make an arbitrary rejection in a case where there was no appeal. We certainly do not make arbitrary rejections in the cases of Polish personnel. On the contrary, we applied to those cases in so far as the evidence was available some profound thought and as careful application of the known criteria as we did to cases arising from our own Forces, and we tried to apply to those Polish cases the law as laid down by the tribunals and the High Court. I am afraid because of the special circumstances surrounding the Polish Forces, and particularly the lack of records, that it would not be possible to apply to them this tribunal procedure.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for the fullness of the answer given by the Minister on that point, but has he considered the possibility, if not of using the ordinary tribunal machinery, at least of using some independent body to deal with those cases which are different from ours?

Mr. Marquand: I have already explained in the Second Reading Debate that we try to provide such an advantage when a rejection has been notified and an objection made against it, because

there is the re-submission of the evidence to another section of the Department. I admit it is the same Department and it is all under the umbrella of my own personal responsibility, but where there is a dispute about a decision then two separate sections of the Department do look at the case. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes his case to be carried further, it can be brought, as frequently happens, to my personal attention or that of the Parliamentary Secretary. We use every possible method to ensure that justice is done.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Marquand.]

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: Although some points of importance and interest have been raised on the Committee stage, I have no doubt that the House will gladly give a Third Reading to this Bill, which is clearly calculated to improve the position of claimants to war pensions. I was particularly anxious to say a word or so on this matter for the reason that in 1943 I was able in a small way to help my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) when he and others were pressing for the establishment of these pension appeal tribunals. I recall very clearly two major points from those days. The first was that the tribunal should be completely independent and that there should be a right to go to the High Court on a point of law. The second point was that the burden of proof should be upon the Minister to justify the rejection of a claim.
All hon. Members will have had the experience that these tribunals have worked exceedingly well, and that is largely due, I think, to the confidence induced by the fact that they are independant and appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Also fair and equitable results are obtained by reason of the onus of proof having shifted from the claimant


to the Ministry. It seems reasonable and right that we should now extend this right of appeal to those who are injured in war service and equivalent service in peace time, and that is what Clause 1 does.
I have a word to say about Clause 2 which extends this right of appeal to those who are in receipt of what are called in the Bill "ex gratia awards." In the course of the Second Reading Debate the Minister made very clear the nature of these ex gratia awards, but it seems that some misunderstanding might arise and it be thought that these awards are charitable grants. But, if I mistake not, these awards arise in this way—the courts having determined the law on the matter, those claimants whose claims were rejected previously and whose claims would have been accepted if the new ruling had been in force have had these claims accepted by the Ministry. We would all strongly approve of that. It seems reasonable and proper that this category of claimant should also have the right of appeal to the tribunals. In these circumstances I have no doubt that all hon. Members will welcome the Bill.

Earl Winterton: I do not ask the Minister to reply to this, but as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) was good enough to refer to that fact that he and I were associated in 1942 or 1943, I should like to say that at that time we had entirely non-party support for our point of view. I am very glad that this Bill is at any rate to some extent the result of the action taken at that time, and I hope it will work successfully, and be, as it should be, a benefit to war pensioners.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: Undoubtedly this Bill effects an improvement, and we are all very pleased to have it. I should be obliged if the Minister would keep a watch over the words "any relevant service." Is the work done by coastguards and coast watchers included? I have found during the war and since that claims by people in those categories have met some special difficulties. Even though the Minister cannot give his answer now, perhaps he will be kind enough to look at that type of work and also bear in mind other ancillary types of work such as lighthouse keepers and

those who work in the Trinity lightships. I am not quite certain yet that the new rule as to the onus of proof is always quite as strictly observed as one hoped it would be when it was introduced some two years ago.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill committed to the Scottish Standing Committee. —[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the increase of the number of judges of the Court of Session to fifteen and to amend the law relating to the sessions of that Court, to the appointment of the Lord Ordinary in Exchequer causes and to the office of sheriff substitute. it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums equal to the amount of any increase by reason of the said Act in the sums respectively payable under the Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Act, 1854, out of the said Fund, and under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933, out of the said moneys; and
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required for the remuneration of persons appointed under the said Act of the present Session to act ad interim as sheriffs substitute.
Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Number of judges of Court of Session.)

4.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "State," to "is," in line 11.
We do not like the idea of dual control entering into the administration of justice in Scotland. If the Bill is really


necessary—and on the statistical information which the Lord Advocate gave us in the Second Reading Debate it is necessary—we feel that the Treasury should be obliged to find the funds to meet its provisions. It seems to us that the sole responsibility for deciding whether one or two additional judges should be appointed ought to rest with the Secretary of State for Scotland who by virtue of his position is best fitted to make a decision of this kind.
It might well be that if the Treasury are going to be allowed to have some say in the matter we should find an unsympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer insisting that the existing 13 judges should sit for longer periods, to the detriment of the administration of the law, rather than permitting one or two additional judges to be appointed. In our view that would be rather a dangerous thing to allow to happen, especially in criminal cases where it might well be that the life of a man or woman is at stake, inasmuch as too great mental and physical strain might be thrust upon the man who by virtue of his high office has to sit in judgment in interpreting the law of the land. We therefore suggest that the Government would be well advised to consider the omission of the words:
With the concurrence of the Treasury.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I sympathise with the idea of this Amendment, but the appointment of judges is rather different from ordinary Government business. It is a matter for His Majesty, and the Secretary of State recommends the appointment of judges. The payment of the judges' salaries comes out of the Consolidated Fund and it is a courtesy that the Treasury, which is expected to pay the salaries, ought to be consulted when an appointment is made. Therefore, it is rather different from what we call the collective responsibility of a Government. This is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make a recommendation to His Majesty, but, clearly, the payment does not come from the Secretary of State but from the Treasury. It is common form that in these matters the Treasury is consulted.
There is ample precedent for such a requirement. For instance, Section 1 (1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1947,

Section 1 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Acts, 1938 and 1944, which made similar provision in regard to the lords of appeal in ordinary. The puisne judges of the High Court, and the judges in the Chancery Division respectively, all require the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to be satisfied that the filling of the vacancy is necessary. Therefore, I would ask the Committee, if the hon. and gallant Member is not willing to withdraw the Amendment, to reject it.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the word of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State would carry such great weight as to overbear the Treasury on a matter of this importance?

Mr. Woodburn: I should think that the existence of this Bill, in which the Treasury have concurred, to increase by two the number of judges who are necessary, is sufficient indication that nobody is standing in the way. This Bill is here to promote that. We do not want to look this gift horse in the mouth by questioning its validity.

Commander Galbraith: We want to be quite certain on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman stressed the point that the Bill would not have been here but for the fact that the Treasury felt that additional judges were necessary. We still feel, however—and we should like his definite assurance on the point—that the concurrence of the Treasury is a matter of courtesy. If it is, indeed, a matter of courtesy and the appointment will be made when the right hon. Gentleman feels it ought to be made, then we have nothing more to say, and in those circumstances my hon. and gallant Friend might be willing to withdraw his Amendment. However, we want the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, if he can give it, that this is purely a matter of courtesy and routine, and that if he thinks an additional judge is necessary, and that there is work for that judge to do, then the judge will be duly appointed.

Mr. Woodburn: There are two points. First, there is the necessity to appoint the judge, which is a matter for myself to recommend to His Majesty. That puts upon me a further obligation to ensure


that the money is available to pay his salary, but that is a matter which is not within my jurisdiction. Clearly, if I am to appoint a judge I must at the same time make arrangements that his salary will be paid. For that purpose the concurrence of the Treasury is necessary.

Mr. Willis: Arising out of what my right hon. Friend has just said, and to clear my own mind, may I ask does this Bill authorise the additional expenditure to cover the cost of employing two judges? Or is it the case that this Bill only authorises the appointment of two additional judges, but does not provide the finance wherewith to do it? If it provides the finance, then this Amendment is beside the point.

Mr. Woodburn: It authorises it, but does not provide it. The finance is provided out of the Consolidated Fund by the Treasury. If, in ordinary administration, we were appointing someone to a job, we would notify the cashier and get his concurrence in order to see that the man got his pay.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I raised a point on Second Reading but had to go away before the Lord Advocate replied. It is this: can we be absolutely certain that the cashier is not in a position to say "no" to the appointment of the judge? We agree that as a matter of courtesy it should be referred to the Treasury, but there must be no doubt in the mind of anyone that they will not have power to say "no" when the Secretary of State, who represents Scotland in the matter, has decided that it is necessary.

Mr. Woodburn: Constitutionally, the Secretary of State alone recommends to the King the appointment of the judge.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Secretary of State said in the course of the Second Reading Debate:
… the number of judges should be increased from 13 to a maximum of 15, with the proviso that appointments in excess of 13 will not be made at any time unless the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury, is satisfied that the state of business so requires."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December. 1948; Vol. 458, col. 2288.]
It is true that the Secretary of State has

the consent of the Treasury to increase, in principle, the number of judges, but the actual appointments would involve the fact that the Secretary of State had convinced the Treasury that the state of business required it. That indicates that some of the discretion at least is in the hands of the Treasury and that it is not solely a matter of form.
The Secretary of State went on to indicate that it might be that he would ask for the appointment of only one judge, and that the appointment of the second judge mentioned here would be a matter for further consideration. We all sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in that he is following the form, but we also want to be sure that it is only a form and a precedent that he is following, and that he will not require to satisfy the Treasury as to the state of business in the Scottish Law Courts. That does not seem to us to be the sort of thing that the Treasury ought independently to inquire into, and the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State ought, in our view, to be enough.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is to be the remuneration of this judge and how long has he to serve before receiving a pension? What is the pension to be? Could the Secretary of State give us some comparison between the rate of pay of judges in Scotland and England?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The salary of a lord ordinary or any other judge, exclusive of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk is £3,600 per annum. They are entitled to a full pension of two-thirds of their salary on completing 15 years' service. They are entitled to a pension if they have to retire within the 15 years on account of physical or mental illness. The amount of pension in such cases varies according to the number of years' service. Without notice, I could not give the exact comparison between the salaries of Scottish and English judges, but, roughly speaking, the comparable figure in England is £5,000.

Mr. Willis: Arising from that—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot have too much discussion about the actual remuneration on this rather narrow point. It may arise on the Question that the Clause stand part.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In view of the partial assurance that the Secretary of State has been able to give us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Willis: May we have an assurance from the Lord Advocate that in the event of these judges being appointed, as he visualises, for a short time simply to clear arrears of work, and if they work only for two or three years, we are not going to give them a pension?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The point I should like to mention concerns the question of salaries. It seems to me that if the new judge for Scotland is to be paid £3,500, and the comparable salary of an English judge is £5,000, either the Scottish judge is paid too low or the English judge is paid too high. I suggest that in the course of negotiations with the Treasury the Secretary of State could assist the Treasury in preserving the nation's finances—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss that at this stage. The Question is, "That the Clause stand part."

Commander Galbraith: I should like to put a question to the Lord Advocate. We are told in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that the estimated annual cost to the Exchequer of the appointment of these additional judges is £9,200 a year. If the salary is £3,600—and that I have no reason to doubt—how do we account for the additional sum involved?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to have this point of Order cleared up, Mr. Bowles. I was not going to suggest a reduction of salary. All I was going to suggest was that the Secretary of State for Scotland should convey to the Treasury the fact which has been brought out in the Committee with a view to getting the salaries of judges in England reduced to the reasonable level of those in Scotland.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I am afraid we cannot do that.

The Lord Advocate: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) seems to indicate that these appointments are merely for a transitory period and that when the volume of work which is now crowding out the courts has been dealt with there will be no further need for such judges. My hon. Friend trusted that in these circumstances the person or the persons appointed would not after two or three years be put on a pension on the completion of his job. That is entirely the wrong picture. The judge will be appointed—if one is appointed—under the terms of the Bill and he will act as an ordinary judge. In course of time another judge may die or retire. When that position arises, the situation will be reviewed to ascertain whether his position falls to be refilled. That will be determined by the volume of work then in the courts. Accordingly, the new appointee under the Bill will be expected to complete, and we hope he will have the life to enjoy, his full term of 15 years in office.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) raised a query of how we arrived at the figure of £9,200 in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. We are taking power to extend the number of judges by two. Provision for this comes to within the region of £7,200, if my mathematics are correct. When a new judge is appointed, however, probably we shall have to appoint a clerk to him, which will involve additional administrative expense. Judges require clerks to help them with the ordinary routine work of the courts and provision has to be made accordingly. There are the personal clerk, the clerk of court and various other factors which have to be taken into account. Therefore, in the Financial Memorandum, we had to take a rather generous figure to ensure the inclusion of all these incidental expenses which are ancillary to, but necessary for, the appointment of a new judge.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Sessions of the Court.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out,
passed in the month of July in each year.


When the Clause was originally framed, and as it appears in the Bill, it provided that the Act of Sederunt fixing the session of the court should be passed in the month of July each year. From a practical viewpoint that would be very inconvenient, because, if the courts did not know until July of a particular year what the sessions were going to be for the succeeding year, it would mean that diets for proof and jury trial and other diets could not be fixed with assurance for the beginning of the new session. These diets are often fixed months ahead. At present in the Court of Session we are actually fixing diets for proofs and jury trials for October or November. If we did not know until the Act of Sederunt was passed in July when the ordinary session was to begin, it would be impossible to fix these diets prior to the passing of the Act of Sederunt. Therefore, we feel that by removing the words contained in the Amendment, and leaving it to the court to fix the sessions by Act of Sederunt at a time most convenient for the business of the court, we are making an improvement to the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the choice before us is either to fix by Act of Parliament or else to give discretion to the court itself. The Amendment gives a further discretion, as I understand it, and for that reason we on this side of the Committee should be disposed to support it. I have taken advice from such gentlemen learned in the law as I could, and I think the consensus of opinion is, as the Lord Advocate stated on Second Reading, that the discretion being given to the courts will be an advantage both to the courts and to possible litigants in Scotland. We do not propose to maintain any objection to the proposal and if discretion is to be given, we think it should be wholehearted. Therefore, we support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Qualification for office of sheriff substitute, etc.)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "qualified," to insert:

and has been for at least five years in practice as a solicitor or advocate.
We do not think that the wording of the Clause as it stands is sufficiently precise. Everybody who knows anything about the legal and social history of Scotland must be aware that the sheriff-substitute is an extremely important and generally, I am glad to say, a very much respected element in the community. It would be deplorable if the high standard of efficiency and repute of the sheriff-substitute was in any way diminished. We suggest, therefore, that the Clause should be strengthened by this Amendment to ensure that any law agent who is appointed to this important office will, in fact, be well versed in the pursuit of actual legal practice. Unless such a provision is inserted in the Clause it seems that it would be possible, under the Bill as it stands, for any person who has passed the law agents' examination to be qualified five years later to act as a sheriff-substitute although, in point of fact, he may not have had any practical experience in legal work. For this reason we hope that the Government will see fit to strengthen the Clause by the acceptance of this Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think there is an objection to this Amendment. Quite a number of qualified legal people who might be appointed to these positions are not in actual practice in the courts. For example, on the staffs of county councils throughout Scotland there are a large number of people who are legally trained but have not been in actual practice. I do not know whether that occurred to the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) but they would be disqualified by his Amendment, and those on the staffs of municipal and local government bodies who otherwise would be eligible and thoroughly qualified for such positions would be debarred. It is not absolutely necessary to have a lawyer who is regularly practising in the courts to take up such a position, but the Amendment would bar people who have municipal training, perhaps a more desirable training than in the courts.

The Lord Advocate: As was explained on Second Reading, the purpose of this Clause was to rectify a drafting point in the 1907 Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act in order to make it quite clear that


a person with five years' standing could aggregate his period of standing in one branch of the profession with his period of standing in another branch of the profession. The 1907 Act, which was the basis from which we proceeded, uses the words:
five years standing in the profession
and did not contain any such qualifications as would be attached by this Amendment. While I have every sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) I cannot accept the Amendment, because it would be very difficult to find out exactly what is meant by the words
in practice as a solicitor or advocate.
It may be easy in the case of a solicitor, by saying that it means a person who has taken out his solicitor's practising certificate, but, in the case of an advocate would one qualify a person who had one undefended divorce case in a year, or a person walking the floor of Parliament House eager and anxious for work, but whose talents have not been recognised? There are many people who are very suitable for this position, even though they may not be in actual practice.
There is a classic case which shows the difficulty into which one gets when one makes these conditions and then selects a person who is admirably qualified but does not come within those conditions. In an Act of 1 and 2 Victoria it was provided that a sheriff-principal should be a person in practice and habitual attendance at Parliament House. An appointment was made in the Glasgow Sheriff Court of a sheriff-principal who was a professor of law at Glasgow University. But someone who was not very keen on this individual drew attention to the fact and an amending Act had to be passed in 1887 to regularise the appointment of this Professor Berry. It was a very short Act to regularise the position of Professor Berry.
We do not want to repeat that procedure, because there may be someone fully qualified but who would not come within the definition provided by this Amendment, if one could get a proper definition of it. The existing practice has been that the nomination is made by the Lord Advocate to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the

appointment. The very tribute which the hon. and gallant Member paid to the shrieval bench in Scotland is eloquent testimony to the manner in which that system has worked in the past. For these reasons, I ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the Amendment, because I think after that explanation he will probably understand that it is not really justified.

4.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We should be disposed to trust the discretion of the Lord Advocate if it were not for the intervention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who brought up a new class of case which I would like to see excluded from such a choice. I do not think a person who has been on the staff of a county council or municipality would be a proper person—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That did actually take place and the county clerk of Ayr was asked at one time to act in this capacity.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have had very bitter criticisms by the hon. Member of officials of the county of Ayr. I do not think his example is very well chosen from his point of view. Naturally, at the end of the day we must trust to the discretion of the recommendation of the 'Lord Advocate and the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We should be wholly disposed to do so in the light of the traditions of the great offices and the standing and dignity of the shrieval bench of Scotland. We only wished to assure ourselves that there was no intention of making a change here and that the Lord Advocate intended that the customs which have guided Lord Advocates in the past, should guide him in the future. I think he has given those assurances, and in view of that perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) will withdraw his Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I was glad to notice that the Lord Advocate appreciated and to some extent agreed with my sentiments, and in view of what he and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) have said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKie: I do not want to introduce a jarring note nor in any way to dissent from what my hon. Friends above the Gangway have said in regard to the proposed change and the qualifications of sheriffs-substitute, but I do not think we should allow the Clause to be added to the Bill without at least one hon. Member being allowed to express some regret at the proposed change. In doing so, I do not wish to cast any slur on the office of Solicitor-General in Scotland, but for a very long period of time now the sheriffs-substitute have been drawn entirely from members of the legal profession who are advocates.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated dissent.

Mr. McKie: I see the Lord Advocate dissenting. I should have said almost entirely. When I think of the great figures of the Scottish Bar who have adorned the office of sheriff-substitute, I contemplate this change with great regret. I think particularly of Sir Walter Scott, whose name was mentioned in an earlier Debate, by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). He was sheriff-substitute of Selkirk and was called "The Shirra." Sir Walter Scott, writing of Galloway, makes Guy Mannering go to Edinburgh and Mr. Pleydell points out to Colonel Mannering the great significance that attached, to the office of sheriff-substitute. In the past, the office of sheriff-substitute in rural Scotland has been looked upon almost with the same degree of sanctity as attaches to the position of parish minister or doctor, and certainly the rural community will not view with feelings of satisfaction the proposed change whereby a solicitor may be allowed to fill the post—

Mr. Willis: There is no change.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member says there is no change, but there is a permissive change. It will be permissible in the future to do things in this direction which it has not been permissible to do in the past. I am glad that the Committee has been favoured this afternoon with the presence of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Cunningham), who by the interest he is

evincing in our proceedings is showing that in Ulster—

The Deputy-Chairman: This Clause does not apply to Ulster but only to Scotland.

Mr. McKie: I was just saying that by the keen interest the hon. Member is evincing in our proceedings he is showing that even in the border counties of Ulster the course of Scottish law is followed with considerable interest.
I leave that point. I now wish to ask the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland a word about Subsection (2), which deals with the appointment which may be made when the office of sheriff-substitute is vacant. How will the proposed words square with the words of Subsection (1) regarding the qualifications of the person who may be appointed to fill the vacancy in the interim? Who is to decide what the qualifications shall be? It is stated that the Secretary of State shall be the "great panjandrum" on this point. Many of us in this Committee have thought for a long time that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been loading himself with many increased burdens which he would be well advised not to take upon his shoulders.
He now comes forward, or the Government, by presenting this Bill, compel him to come forward, and say what the qualifications shall be for a person who is appointed to fill in the interim the position of a sheriff-substitute in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to enlighten me on what he thinks these qualifications should be? Must such a person be a solicitor or advocate, or may he be a person in the position of an honorary sheriff-substitute in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that an honorary sheriff-substitute may have no qualifications either as a solicitor or as an advocate. Is it proposed in certain circumstances to endow honorary sheriffs-substitute with the powers which fall to sheriffs-substitute alone?

Mr. Woodburn: The qualifications in connection with Subsection (2) in regard to anyone who is appointed are decided by the 1907 Act. They must have the same qualifications as the sheriff-substitute himself, as laid down in Subsection (1). I wish to correct a slight misapprehension


on the part of the hon. Member. He seems to think that we have now made some change by which a solicitor can be appointed, seeming to imply that a solicitor could not previously be appointed. A former hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, Mr. Tom Cassels, who was a solicitor, was appointed as sheriff-substitute in Inverness county. It is not without precedent for solicitors to be appointed to this post.
The change which has been made is slightly different. It is that a person does not need to have been five years a solicitor or advocate; he may have been qualified for five years partly as a solicitor and partly as an advocate. That five years will qualify him for the post. I suggest that we have to take for granted that the person who occupies the position of Secretary of State or Lord-Advocate in Scotland at any time can be trusted not to appoint people who are not qualified. But because a person has these qualifications it does not mean that he is fit to be appointed. Therefore, his total ensemble, so to speak, must be taken into account in making such an appointment. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, appointments in the past have shown that that discretion has been properly used.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On a point of Order. I have put down a new Clause—[Alteration of Titles].

The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of Order. It is quite inconsistent with Clause 4, which we have just passed. The hon. Member is seeking to change the titles of various judicial officers in Scotland. He has failed to put down Amendments to Clause 4, which would have been the right place for him to seek to make that change. Therefore, his proposed new Clause is out of Order.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Thank you, Mr. Bowles. I am a layman in these matters and I wished to take advice upon the subject.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will now see that it is quite obvious that I could not rule otherwise than I have done.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I wish to call attention to an omission from the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: On a point of Order. As the hon. and gallant Member is prefacing his remarks by saying that he wishes to draw attention to an omission from the Bill, I respectfully submit that he is out of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): On Third Reading we may discuss what is in the Bill, not what is not in it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Sheriffs-substitute are dealt with in the Bill and I think that my hon. Friend would clearly be in Order in discussing the sheriff-substitute.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member said that he regretted that something was not in the Bill. However, we shall see how he proceeds.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I will not speak about what is not in the Bill but about sheriffs-substitute. It is on the point of sheriffs-substitute who were mentioned in Clause 4 that I wish to say a few words. On Second Reading, I spoke about the origin and evolution of the office of sheriff-principal and sheriff-substitute. I do not propose to cover that ground again because it is well understood by all Members of the Committee and there is no dispute about it. I would remind the Committee that this term sheriff-substitute referred to in Clause 4 is a survival of the days following the '45 and the Heritable Jurisdictions Act, 1746, when the sheriff-depute could be represented by a substitute, who had no jurisdiction other than as the representative of the sheriff-depute, from whom alone he derived his authority. Thus it was that Mr. Erskine, as sheriff-substitute


to the sheriff-depute of Selkirkshire, wrote many of the judgments for his superior, though the judgments were actually those of Sir Walter Scott who as sheriff-depute was a judge of first instance.
Up to 1838 the tenure of office of a sheriff-substitute depended upon the pleasure of the sheriff-depute by whom he was appointed and lapsed with his death. Forty years later, by the Sheriff Court Act, 1877, the right to appoint substitutes was transferred to the Crown. Since that date, the sheriff-substitute has been a resident judge ordinary appointed by the Crown. He is entirely independent and is a substitute to no one, and I submit that it is an anachronism and an anomaly that he should be called a sheriff-substitute.
The point that I am making is that the term "substitute," used in the Bill, is anomalous and an anachronism. I think that the "salaried sheriff-substitute," as he is officially known, ought to be called just "sheriff." The term "sheriff" should be applied to the holder of the office of resident judge of the first instance, instead of the term "sheriff-substitute." There are about half a hundred sheriffs-substitute and twelve sheriffs-principal. If that change could be made at a later stage it would give great satisfaction to the sheriffs-substitute and would cause no offence to the sheriffs-principal, because their office would be continued, and would be known as sheriff-principal exactly as it is at the present time. There would be no alteration in that regard.
It may of course be said, "What's in a name? What matters is not the name, but the reality, and that so long as the salaried sheriff-substitute does his job properly the title by which he is known is of secondary importance." That is true. But it is also true that every sheriff-substitute could give many instances of the misleading effect of the continued use of the name, "sheriff-substitute." The sheriff court judges have long been unanimous and emphatic in their advocacy of this change. The Lord Advocate, when this matter was raised in Second Reading, referred to a "long drawn-out controversy" rather as if this had been a matter of controversy in Scotland for a long time. I think that he must have been referring to the point which I tried

to make then about the double sheriff-ship. That, I agree, has divided members of the legal profession in Scotland for many years. I am not now referring to that at all, but to this narrow point of nomenclature of the sheriff-substitute.
Let us face the fact that the term "substitute" has about it an air of inferiority. It is not the real thing. It is for that reason that I urge the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate to right this wrong, to correct this anomaly, to prevent inevitable and avoidable misconceptions and to meet the desire of a body of the King's lieges who have been referred to in the Debate this afternoon by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) as very much respected members of the community. I trust that the Government will meet the desire that I have expressed in this matter.

5.4 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: There is a good deal of substance in what my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has said. It may be that at this stage of the Bill we are not in a position to discuss it to any great extent. But may I put it to the Secretary of State that he might consider this matter, in the light of the observations made by my hon. Friend, for reference to another place where the alterations could easily be made? If they were made it would at least bring satisfaction to those who occupy the position of sheriff-substitute today, and it would also give satisfaction to the people of Scotland.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not propose to oppose the Third Reading, although I think it is unfortunate, in view of the shortage of manpower, that we should be contemplating introducing or increasing the number of judges in Scotland. But I am very pleased to know that the Secretary of State has a certain measure of control in deciding whether it is necessary to have them there or not. I think it would be very desirable if we could achieve conditions in Scotland that would allow us to decrease instead of increasing the number of judges. Judges are not a desirable feature of our social life—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Bill is designed to give the Secretary of State for Scotland power to increase and not to reduce the number of judges.

Mr. Gallacher: He has power to increase the number of judges, and I am expressing the hope that he may never have to use that power, because, as I have said, they are not what might be called a desirable feature of our social life. But everybody would agree—

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to say that judges are not a desirable feature of our public life? Is not that attacking the administration of justice?

Mr. Gallacher: I think that everyone will agree with me that we should have a very happy situation in Scotland if we could do without justices altogether.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I disagree.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is nothing new.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) does not agree. He has been in court many times, as have the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and myself. But he has been handing it out while we have been at the receiving end, and that makes all the difference. We have an entirely different attitude towards judges from what he has. One of the Ministers was talking in the tea room today about judges. He told a story of a fellow who was in the dock and was asked by the judge whether he was guilty or not guilty. He said, "Not guilty." The judge said, "You must be guilty or you would not be in the dock." That is very often the attitude.
I want the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, and the other Members of the Government, to see if it is possible to bring about social conditions in Scotland, make things better for the people, take away the temptation from the young by bringing about at the earliest possible moment abundance for all young people—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is very wide of the subject. This is purely and simply a machinery Bill, and the hon. Member cannot hang upon it a speech on social conditions.

Mr. Gallacher: I am very concerned about this point. I feel, as I am sure do hon. Members on the other side of the House—well, I will not say the other side—but every hon. Member on this side feels that if a good job is done, and social conditions are made of such a character as will give the people the ordinary and decent amenities of life, the Secretary of State, instead of having to increase the judgeships—and thereby impose a drain on our restricted manpower—would be in the happy position of being able to reduce them. I think that is a consummation that all of us, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen, would greatly welcome.

5.8 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I must say one word, after what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has told us. I suppose we have all been before the justices for one thing or another, if only for not having a licence for a dog, or something similar. But I think it is quite wrong to suggest that in the minds of those in judgment in Scotland today is the idea that, "You are in the dock, and therefore you must be guilty." That is not quite fair.

Mr. Gallacher: I did not say that. I said that a Minister—not an ordinary individual like the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs or myself but a Minister—told that story today. That is what he said—although I am inclined to agree with him.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Naturally, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you would not allow us to discuss the secrets of the Tea Room, and I shall not pursue that matter further.
One of the reasons for requiring this increased number of judges in Scotland is the alarming increase in the number of divorce cases. If the proposals of an organisation, which has sent to me and other Members a circular today, are carried out we shall want an even greater number of judges. There is no doubt that this Bill is very necessary to meet the present situation, but I do not think we should go beyond its provisions. I believe the Lord Advocate said that as a judge eventually dies, another will not be


put in his place, unless it is absolutely necessary. That will gradually reduce the number.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: This Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to increase the number of judges by two, and it has been made necessary, to some degree, by the increase in the number of divorces. In considering these appointments, and the work which has to be undertaken, I should like the Minister to consider whether a woman should not be appointed to one of these judgeships. I raised this question on the Criminal Justice Bill, in Committee, when I was told that there was nothing to prevent a woman being made a judge. Although this might be an innovation, Scotland ought to take the opportunity of making such an innovation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not exclude the possibility of a woman judge being appointed, for the first time in the history of these islands, especially in view of the matters which affect women so vitally.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I do not wish to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes), because I am one of those least qualified to pontificate on questions of divorce. I hope, however, that what he said will be duly noted by the Scottish Office. Whether we in Scotland should create a number of Portias is a much wider aspect of the question, into which I do not enter now. I am sorry that I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in what they said about the words "sheriff-substitute," in Clause 4. Both my hon. Friends expressed dissatisfaction that the Bill leaves us with those words still in use, but I am very glad that they are to be retained, and I hope that in another place the Secretary of State will not introduce an Amendment to delete the word "substitute" after the word "sheriff."
What I said in Committee will no doubt be still in the minds of Members of the House. They will know where I stand, and the great attachment I have for the office of sheriff-substitute in

Scotland. I dislike change merely for the sake of change. We in Scotland have always cherished the words "sheriff-substitute," and until a more reasoned argument has been made out against these words than has been made out so far, I hope the Minister will stand by Clause 4 as drafted. I also hope that we shall give this Bill an unopposed Third Reading.

5.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: This Bill has been welcomed from all corners of the House. The principal part of it is contained in Clause 1, which gives the Government power to increase the number of judges in Court of Session. On Second Reading, I explained the justification for taking these powers, but I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that it is not an increase in the number of divorce cases as such, that has necessitated this step. If he examines the statistics he will see that there has been a great increase in the all-round work of the Court of Session. The increase in the divorce work has been quite serious, but it has not been sufficient to interfere unduly with the other work of the Court, in view of the times at which divorce cases, which are mostly undefended, are taken.
I want to take advantage of this opportunity to correct some figures I gave about divorce cases, lest there should be any misapprehension. I gave the figure, I think, of an average of 75 before the war as against 800 this year. What I was referring to—and a reading of the context makes it easier to understand—was the number of cases in the calling list in April or August—an average of 75 prewar and about 800 this year. That, of course, is no index of the actual number of cases going through the courts. To get the record straight I have the figures here: in 1937 there were 647 divorces; in 1938 there were 824; and in 1947 there were 2,561.

Mr. Willis: These figures do not, I take it, alter the point my right hon. and learned Friend made on Second Reading, that the peak has been reached?

The Lord Advocate: That is so. I think we have passed the peak.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) raised the question of the nomenclature of the sheriff-substitute. I find it very difficult to put


my case without going outside the rules of Order. The whole question of nomenclature is inevitably linked up with the question of sheriff-principal and sheriff-substitute, which I cannot develop at this stage. The name "sheriff-substitute" has become to be honoured and revered throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. There is no question of any stigma being attached to the designation "sheriff-substitute." He is known as the sheriff, particularly in the rural areas; he is never known as the sheriff-substitute.
It was said that "sheriff-substitute" was an anachronism and an anomaly. The Scottish law is full of such things, but they do not constitute a fundamental deficiency. The Lord Justice Clerk, the second senior judge, is not a clerk, but he is called the Lord Justice Clerk. The Lord Ordinary is known as the Lord Ordinary, but he is not an ordinary Lord. If I may go over the Border, for the sake of analogy, even though it might offend the hon. and gallant Member for Perth, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that a prominent legal luminary in England is known as the Master of the Rolls. What his association with Rolls may be is not on record, but I would point out that there was a Government in power in 1937 which gave him control of them. In these circumstances we really cannot introduce into the Bill this controversy, which is inter-linked with the greater dispute that has ranged for some time.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I was not proposing any change in the title "Sheriff-principal," which might well remain, but has not the Lord Advocate received a memorial from the Sheriffs-Substitute Association recommending, not once but many times, that the term "substitute" should be abolished? All the sheriff court judges are against it and there has been no controversy about it.

The Lord Advocate: I have received the memorial. I receive frequent representations. I do not want it to be thought that I am indicating an opinion one way or the other in this matter. The Bill is not the proper vehicle for carrying into effect whatever decision is arrived at. If I treat the matter in this way, it does not indicate that I am necessarily opposed to any change. I will consider that matter when it arises on the greater question.
The rest of the criticisms really tall by the wayside. I would only point out to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who indicated that he would like to see a decrease in the number of judges—I think we all would, from the point of view of a lessening of crime—that we must remember that our judges are required not only for criminal but for civil cases. The same judges perform both functions. The Scots are notoriously a litigious race. I do not know whether, in the interests of my union, I could give approval to the expression of hope by the hon. Member for West Fife. I am glad that the Bill is welcome.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I rise for one or two good and simple reasons. I have no wish to follow the Lord Advocate's example in the way in which he has poached upon English law. I do not in the least mind a Scots lawyer poaching upon English law or an English lawyer poaching on Scots law. There is a very eminent lawyer here who could deal fully with the position, if he wished to. But I have risen to congratulate the Lord Advocate upon his apology for giving an inaccurate statement. It is quite right that he should do so and I am glad to have had the opportunity of listening to him. We so often have inaccurate statements in this House from the other side that the only thing that interests me is when we happen to have an accurate one.
My principal object in rising is to comment upon the way in which the Lord Advocate, at the beginning of the Debate on the Bill, with a complete lack of civility which brought a blush to the cheek of the Secretary of State for Scotland—who is a polite and decent body if ever there was one—tried immediately, upon a pure technicality, to rule out of Order, apparently for no reason whatever, what had been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). I stopped to listen in order to see whether there was any reason the Lord Advocate could possibly give for thinking that my hon. Friend was wrong.
I congratulate the Lord Advocate on his speech. He made a speech which completely and utterly convinced me of his wisdom. He wished to stop this


Debate because he knew he was incapable of answering my hon. Friend. I congratulate my hon. Friend also upon having put the Lord Advocate into such a false position. I must say that during the time I listened to the Lord Advocate dealing with the position of Scots judges I was singularly disappointed to find that there was any lawyer in Scotland so completely incapable of doing the job, at which the hon. and learned Member thinks he is so good, but no one else does.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (ABOLITION) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.26 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I always suspect the speaker who commences by saying that he is going to be very brief, because usually that results in a speech of great tedium and inordinate length. Without holding out any undue hopes that I shall not make one of the longest speeches that have been made in this House about this little Bill, I should like to explain its purpose. It would be invidious to draw a comparison between this Bill and others to which this House has thought fit to give a Second Reading. This Bill, so far from increasing the number of judicial officers, reduces them. This is a modest, and I venture to think entirely uncontroversial, little Measure, the object of which is formally to abolish a court which, although once important, has now fallen into desuetude, and to transfer its few remaining functions to other tribunals.
The Railway and Canal Commission was established in 1888, under an Act which turned over its jurisdiction from an earlier body of commissioners. At one time it had very important functions in regard to railway rates and charges and in regard to the rating of railway properties. It decided on these matters after open judicial inquiry. It was a busy tribunal which had among its judges and commissioners many very famous names

indeed. It enjoyed a great position in our judicial system, but that was in days long gone by. Of the important jurisdictions which this commission once exercised virtually nothing now remains. The establishment of the Railway Rates Tribunal by the Act of 1921 removed its jurisdiction in regard to railway rates and charges. Its functions in regard to other matters affecting railways have been transferred elsewhere as a result of the Transport Act, 1947, and of the Local Government Act of this year.
The remaining functions were of a curiously miscellaneous character and, with one small exception, really are quite insignificant in importance. The Commission dealt, for instance, with applications to work minerals under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. It determined differences, if differences arose, between the Postmaster-General and the railways in regard to the laying of lines and cables over railways or across canals, and it had power to deal with disputes in regard to the placing of telegraph poles on land, and various other small matters of that kind.
Most of these functions are now to be transferred under Clause 1 to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session. Clause 2 provides that the appellate jurisdiction of the magistrates who have hitherto dealt with disputes relating to the placing of telegraph poles on public roads should be transferred to a judge of the High Court and that county court judges should be substituted for the magistrate as having the original jurisdiction in the matter. The other Clauses deal with questions of such infrequent occurrence and small importance that it is really unnecessary to take up the time of the House in discussing them. Indeed, all the functions of the Commission have only necessitated 12 sittings in the course of the present year as against 48 a year 20 years ago, a figure which itself compares with the normal 190 working days of the ordinary High Court judge. So much for the functions of the Commission.
The Commission consisted of a judge of the High Court who was ex officio chairman, who received no special salary in respect of the matter and whose office as a judge of the High Court continued. In Scotland it was a judge of the Court of Session. In addition, there were two


commissioners appointed by the Home Secretary. Of the two, one retired I think in the Autumn of last year. Of the other, the remaining one, I should like to say a few words. The Court has possessed among its Commissioners a number of very famous names. Not the least among them is the name of Lord Maenan who, as Sir Francis Kyffin Taylor was known to all members of the Bar, and particularly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and myself and other members of the Northern Circuit, as the presiding judge of the Liverpool Court of Passage.
I do not want to speak about him in language which is extravagant or fulsome, but I doubt whether there has ever been a greater judge or one who has been held in higher esteem and greater affection. On the Northern Circuit we looked upon him as a master of the law, a high ornament of the bench and a guide, philosopher and friend to all of us. I hope that the House will not think that this must be taken against the noble Lord, but had it not been for his encouragement and advice in earlier days at the Bar, and indeed quite recently, I doubt very much whether I should be occupying my present position. I am proud to have the opportunity of paying tribute to one who, when he left the judicial bench, apart from this Commission, at the remarkable age of 94, still possessed qualities of mind and heart which must be envied by most other holders of judicial office much younger in years than is Lord Maenan.
The Bill will provide—an Amendment will have to be moved in this House since the matter was not appropriate to be dealt with in the other place from which the Bill has come—for some measure of compensation for the loss of office by one who, despite a lifetime of public service, would not otherwise be entitled to a pension. I commend the Bill to the House as one which will put to a formal end a tribunal which no longer serves the useful and important purpose that it once did. I commend it to the House with regret to the extent that it also involves the removal from judicial office of so great and respected a figure.

5.35 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: As you will expect, Mr. Speaker, there is no opposition

to this Bill from myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends. We realise that with the passing of the Transport Act, 1947, the main purposes of the Railway and Canal Commission finally departed. I should like, as the right hon. and learned Attorney-General did, to pay a tribute to the judges of this court who have dealt with highly technical subjects which touch very nearly the lives of the people in many respects. They dealt with the ensurement of good railway services in the difficult days when the railways of this country were being built up. In dealing with these highly technical and complicated matters, they showed an industry and a good sense which deserved well of the country. I should like only to add a footnote to the tribute which the Attorney-General has paid to the last of the commissioners—Lord Maenan. As the Attorney-General said, some of us owe more to him than we can ever express. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not grudge this short incursion of the Northern Circuit into the time of the House on this subject.
The main procedure adopted in the Bill is to transfer the outstanding points to His Majesty's courts—some to the county court and others of more importance to the High Court and the Court of Session. In days when most of us think there are far too many transfers to special courts this is a course, for which we can feel nothing but welcome. We ask the Attorney-General not to be weary in well-doing but to go through the statutes and, whenever he can find a special court, to apply the reasoning and procedure which he has applied in this case. There is one exception in reference to the official arbitrators in respect of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916. There again, I make no objection. I believe that the official arbitrators have proved themselves in their 29 years and that they will deal not only fairly—which one assumes—but carefully and courteously with the various claims which arise. For these reasons we shall not vote against this Bill but will give it an unopposed Second Reading.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: As a back bench Member and also as a member of the Northern Circuit, I should like


to pay my tribute to Lord Maenan. Lord Maenan is one of the few remaining men who took silk during the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. He has been known to the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have just spoken for the whole of their legal careers, and he has been known to me. We have all stood before him in our early life at the Bar and he holds a place in our affection greater than that of any of the legal luminaries of the past or present. To quote Lord Tennyson:
He wears all that weight Of learning lightly like a flower.
We are sorry that in passing this Bill we are burying his office of canal commissioner, but we are delighted to know that Lord Maenan has taken his seat in another place and that he made his maiden speech upon this Bill. As a member of the circuit and a Member of this House I pay my tribute to Lord Maenan.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (ABOLITION) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. TOUCHE in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish the Railway and Canal Commission and make provision for the future exercise and performance of their functions; to amend and repeal certain enactments relating to their functions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of pensions to or in respect of persons who suffer loss of employment in consequence of the abolition of the said Commission."—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

5.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of Section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which, as amended by Subsection (1) of Section five of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, would otherwise expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, be continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
Section 8. of the Act of 1946, as amended, by Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1947, is the only provision, except Defence Regulation 76, continued in force until the end of this year by the Act of 1947 which it is desired to continue in force for another year. These Sections postpone the fixing of the appointed day under the Restoration of Pre-war Trade Practices Act, 1942, and their extension will enable my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service to defer the date when employers would be required to restore trade practices departed from during the war. The House will also wish to know, and I have very much pleasure in informing it, that both sides of the National Joint Advisory Council, who were consulted in this matter by my right hon. Friend, are in agreement with this proposal.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of Section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Regulation seventy-six of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, which would otherwise expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, be continued in force until the thirty-first day of December. nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
As I have just informed the House, this Defence Regulation is the only regulation kept in force by the Act of 1947 until the end of this year which it is desired to continue. In moving the Second Reading of the Act of 1947, I described the reasons for grouping the regulations then under consideration into those that might


be allowed to come to an end, those that might be continued for 12 months, those that might be continued for a longer time and those that could be made permanent. Defence Regulation 76 falls into the second group. The selection of the regulations for inclusion in this group has been remarkably well justified by events. The only one of them which has disappointed my hopes is this Defence Regulation 76. All the others have been revoked or replaced by permanent legislation, or are, for other reasons, no longer required.
This regulation was made in 1939 to enable the Minister of Transport to make by order such provision as appeared to him to be necessary in the interests of safety for the handling of explosives and inflammable substances in ports and inland waterways, and to alter the application of any Act in regard to the handling of these substances in these places. Orders were made by the Minister which have taken the place of the by-laws of the harbour undertakings. It is intended that fresh by-laws shall be made by the undertakings and confirmed by the Minister under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, but the form of the model code of by-laws has not yet been completed and the various changes which have taken place in the handling of petroleum and explosives make it undesirable to go back to the old by-laws. We want to keep this regulation in force until the undertakings have made by-laws in the new form.
A further special reason for continuing this regulation is the continued need for the handling of Government explosives in dock areas. The regulation exempts from the operation of restrictions imposed by any Act the handling of explosives on behalf of the Government and under it, an order was made in 1939 by the Minister of Transport which provides for the handling of these explosives in accordance with the safety provisions set out in the order. It is intended to replace the order by regulations under the Explosives Act, 1875, which have still to be agreed between the Department and the undertakings affected, and, in these circumstances, it is desirable to keep the regulation in force until the new arrangements are brought into operation.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Bilston, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd December, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WELFARE OFFICERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: On 29th July last, in this House, in a Debate on Service disablement pensions, the Minister of Pensions used these words:
One thing that was done recently in the time of my immediate predecessor, and about which the House knows little or nothing so far, I would like to mention. I do not want to say a lot about it tonight, because it is still in the experimental stages, but I would like to allude to it to indicate how we are trying to approach these problems. We have appointed some 25 welfare officers, which is, again, a new departure and something that has never been done before; in every region, there are welfare officers, and, if the service proves successful, we shall add to their number.
A little later, he said:
I would indicate that the service has been introduced, but that, as yet, it is experimental, and it is therefore too early to say whether it is a success or a failure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 1657.]
That was some five months ago, and my object in raising the matter tonight is to try to get some indication from the Minister how this new experiment is working, and also to try to make a few suggestions myself as to ways in which this work may be still further extended. We have one slight indication as to how things are going, because, in the recently published 23rd Report of the Ministry, in paragraph 114, there is a reference to the appointment of these officers:
These officers are interviewing large numbers of pensioners every week, discussing their personal problems and helping them in any way possible. In just over three months, about 33,000 pensioners have taken advantage of these arrangements.
I think that when we heard the announcement we all welcomed it because stress


is again being laid on the constructive side of the Ministry's work. People sometimes think that the work of the Ministry of Pensions is largely a matter of handing out money to disabled persons. That, of course, is only one side of it, and there is a great deal of very valuable constructive work carried out by the Ministry. As I see it, it is the job of these welfare officers to make sure that every disabled pensioner knows what is available to him, not only in the way of allowances and payments in cash, but also in the way of services.
I was grateful to the Minister when recently he took up a suggestion of mine and decided to issue a letter to every disabled pensioner giving full details of all the allowances and services available at the Ministry, so as to try to make sure that they all knew just what was available to them. In this letter, the Minister drew special attention to the existence of these welfare officers, and recommended every disabled man to get in touch with the welfare officer at the regional office. There is one aspect of the Ministry's work about which, I believe, a number of disabled persons are still somewhat uncertain. It is the right of the disabled person to treatment in respect of his disability under the auspices of the Ministry. I hope that the welfare officers are giving special attention to making sure that disabled persons fully appreciate just what they can obtain in the way of treatment for ailments arising out of their disability.
Talking of treatment leads me to the question of rehabilitation generally. I should like to quote again from the 23rd Report. In paragraph 110, under the heading "Rehabilitation," we find these words:
A most important feature of the Ministry's work is the rehabilitation of the war disabled. The approach to this problem is threefold. First, the disablement as such must be reduced to the lowest level to which medical science can bring it. Secondly, the patient must be helped to achieve a state of mind in which he will return to every-day life prepared and willing to play a normal part, to keep a job, to cultivate other interests and to enjoy his leisure. Thirdly, he must be helped and prepared in a practical way towards a job if his disability will affect the resumption of his normal occupation. The third matter is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, whose Disablement Resettlement Officers are in close touch with all Ministry hospitals and who see all patients.

My point in referring to that is to ask the Minister to give some clear indication of the liaison between the Ministry of Labour's rehabilitation officers and his own welfare officers. I want to feel that there is a close understanding between them.
There is another job which I think these welfare officers might do. As the House knows, the Service Ministries pay out quite a number of disability pensions direct. The Ministry of Pensions deals with those of the recent war, and will, in future, deal with them all, whether in wartime or in peacetime. A large number of pensions are already being paid out, and I have been gradually getting the figures from the Service Ministries. For the Navy the number is small, but for the Army it is over 7,500. These cases are dealt with on exactly the same scale as those administered direct by the Ministry of Pensions. There is parallel treatment. I suggest that if it is found desirable for welfare officers to keep in touch with those pensioners whose affairs are administered direct by the Ministry of Pensions, it will probably also be a good idea to allow the welfare officers to take under their wing those pensioners whose affairs are administered direct by a Service Department.
The Minister's own welfare officers will obviously be in a much better position to advise a pensioner than would someone direct from the Service Department. It might be a very good thing if a pensioner who is receiving his pension from the War Office, the Admiralty, or the Royal Air Force could have access to, and get advice from, the Ministry of Pensions' welfare officer.
As one reason for that, I should like to quote a case which occurred quite recently in my own constituency. It concerns a former marine who suffered a disability from his peacetime service, and who has for some years been drawing a pension through the Admiralty. I understand that he has been virtually bedridden ever since 1945, but until the autumn of this year he was not aware, apparently, of the existence of the constant attendance allowance. As soon as an application was put in, this man was granted that allowance at the highest rate. One feels it is a pity that he should not have applied for that allowance much earlier. It may well be


that he could have claimed it ever since 1945. It is that kind of case to which the welfare officer might give his attention, even though it is not a case directly administered by the Ministry of Pensions.
There is a further category of people to whom the welfare officer might give some attention. Between the wars, as we all know, pensions were refused to many men who, on the present basis of assessment, would have got them. Many of those men are now approaching the 60's, and in many cases are more and more feeling the effects of the disabilities in respect of which they were unsuccessful in applying for pensions. It may well be that some of these men may have to have recourse to the Assistance Board because their disabilities, although not recognised for pension purposes, may be such as to make it impossible for them to earn their living in the normal way. Some of these cases, in the inter-war years, may have gone to appeal, and it may be that, legally, it is impossible for them to be raised again. However, that is a legal point, and I would not like to express an opinion about it. But not all such cases may have got so far. There may have been an application; it may have been refused and the man may then have left it at that, in which case it might well be possible that such a case could be raised again now—I do not know, but I think it needs looking into.
Obviously, it would be quite impossible to ask welfare officers to get in touch with all those men who, in the interwar years, were refused pensions. Some of the men may not wish even to have their cases raised again, but I think that something might be done on these lines: if such a man as I have described—a man who fought in the first world war and is now getting into his late 50's or 60's—because of his disabilities, which were not recognised for pension, now finds himself having recourse to the Assistance Board, I suggest that the Assistance Board might be asked to invite such a man to make contact with the Ministry of Pensions welfare officer. If that were done as a matter of routine, it would ensure that at any rate those men of that earlier period, who are in most difficult circumstances, are brought into contact with the welfare officers service of the Ministry, and it might be possible to do something for them. I throw that out as a suggestion. I appreciate that one

cannot raise all the cases which were rejected in the inter-war years, but I think that particular group could well be looked into.
I would like to say a final word, almost by way of a caution. I want the Minister to make it quite clear that there is no connection whatever between an interview between a welfare officer and a pensioner and any reduction of an assessment by a medical board. I raise this point because, again, there has come to my notice a case which rather disturbs me. A pensioner went before a medical board for the usual check-up. He was invited to see the welfare officer. He did so, and the welfare officer and he had quite a long chat and discussed all the ins and outs of his case. The medical board reduced that man's assessment. Not unnaturally perhaps, as this was the first time the assessment had been reduced, and as it was the first time that the man had had a detailed discussion of his affairs with the welfare officer, the man unfortunately got the impression that there was some connection between the two, that the reduction of his assessment was not entirely due to medical grounds but that the interview and the discussion of his personal affairs had had something to do with it.
I hope very much that the Minister will do all he can to make it quite clear that it is not the job of the welfare officer in any way to affect that issue. Reductions of assessment, if they are made are made purely on medical grounds. In the case to which I have referred, I found that, far from having had any influence towards getting a reduction in the pension, the welfare officer thought that, on the face of it, there might be a case for granting a special hardship allowance because the man was no longer doing the job which he had been able to do before. In this case I was able to assure the man that, far from having any connection with the reduction of his assessment, the welfare officer had, in fact, from his point of view recommended that the case should be considered with a view to the possibility of granting a special hardship allowance.
Those are one or two points which have cropped up during recent months since this welfare officer service has been operating. No doubt, other points have come to the notice of the Minister. I


think that the institution of this particular form of service is excellent, and it holds out great possibilities for the future. We want to be quite sure that it develops on the right lines, so I hope that the Minister will give us as full a report as he can on progress to date. The scheme has now been operating for several months. It is five months since it was last mentioned in this House, and I expect my hon. Friend the Minister will be in a position to say just how matters are proceeding. I hope that he will take the opportunity of giving us a report on this service, which is yet one more of the innovations of this Government which will be of great benefit to the ex-Service men.

6.7 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I am sure that all of us who are interested in this subject of the welfare officers service and of the welfare of disabled ex-Service men in general are grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) for having raised this matter and given us a chance to have a discussion on this very important subject. All of us who are connected with various disabled ex-Service men's organisations have the very greatest hope that when these welfare officers get into their stride, they will bring a degree of humanity into the administration of disablement pensions which possibly has not always existed in the past.
As I see it, the Government have decided at the moment to do nothing about the basic rate of pension. In case anyone should think that I am trying to bring party bias into this Debate, may I say that I support the Government in the attitude which they have taken on the question of doubling the basic rate at this period of economic difficulties in this country. The Government have decided to help the hardest cases by bringing in a very complicated system of supplementary allowances and special assistance to meet special cases. The result has been that the ordinary pensioner and disabled man today has not the slightest idea what all these supplementary schemes amount to or what his full entitlements are.
I am fairly certain that in this country today there must be thousands of disabled men who are not drawing their full entitlements, largely through ignorance.

I do not think we can blame them. I doubt if there is a single Member in this House, other than the Minister himself, who could quote what all these supplementary schemes are and what a man can draw under them, or who in fact comes under them. To my mind that is one of the root causes of the agitation which is going on among ex-Service men in the country today. I think it is also one of the causes of the agitation on their behalf which many misguided people who are not themselves disabled are making. There are many people who seriously believe that 45s. is all that a 100 per cent. disabled ex-Service man receives. That is not the case at all. I do not say that a lot of people get much more. but certainly they are entitled to a great deal more if they knew how to get it.
I claim, therefore—and I hope all hon. Members opposite will agree—that if the Government do not intend to give extra assistance by way of increasing the basic rate of pension, at least it is the bounden duty of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to see that all pensioners receive their full entitlement. In order to achieve that we shall have to see a slightly changed outlook in the administration at the Ministry of Pensions of the whole scheme for disabled pensioners. In the past the Ministry undoubtedly have been on the side of the Treasury and the taxpayer. The attitude was, "If a man is not drawing his full entitlement it is not our job to point out to him what his entitlement is."
There was something to be said for that point of view when our Pensions Code was a much more simple affair than it is today. The ordinary local branches of the British Legion, the ordinary voluntary British Legion secretaries, the ordinary man, should have known more or less what he was entitled to. He really cannot know today. I do not think there is any justification for that kind of attitude today. From what I have seen, there has been a change of view in the hon. Gentleman's own Department in Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, but I am doubtful whether that change in attitude has been transmitted to all the branch offices of his Ministry up and down the country.
I have great hopes that these welfare officers who are now being appointed will


bring that about. Instead of sitting back in their offices and waiting for the men to come to them, they will make it their job to get about and try to inform everyone, including the secretaries of the British Legion, what the entitlement is. The obligation should be on the officers. They will be failing in their duty if the man is not drawing his full entitlement.
There is another matter. I asked the Minister today a Question about what special steps were being taken by his Department to assist ageing pensioners. In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister hoped to say something about this problem in the Debate on the Adjournment tonight. I cannot anticipate what the hon. Gentleman will say, but I do not think it will be an answer to my Question to say that he is appointing welfare officers. Personally I have always held the view that there is a case to be made out for automatic increases in pensions for disabled men as they grew older. There is no question but that it is as a person gets older that these weaknesses begin to make themselves felt. I could take one particular case, but I will not argue it out because I expect I should be out of Order if I did so. I believe there is a case to be made out for some kind of automatic increase in a man's pension, or some up-grading, when he gets beyond a certain age and, say, every five years.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) has put his case with studied moderation and very great fairness, and I think we all listened to him with pleasure and almost entirely with agreement. We are very grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) for raising this important matter tonight and giving us the opportunity of this discussion. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to make one apology to the Minister, which may be necessary; I may not be able to hear the conclusion of this discussion. We expected to have this discussion at a much later hour and I arranged to come along and take part in it, but I am now taking part in it three or four hours earlier than I had anticipated.
I want, without impertinence, to support what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge on one or two points, and

in relation to a specific aspect of the matter to which I have previously referred. The administration of disabled persons' pensions has certainly become much more enlightened, much more generous, much more sympathetic, during the last few months.
While that has been going on, while that change has been taking place, the law in regard to pensions has also been altering. Mr. Justice Denning, when he was dealing with pensions cases, laid down a whole new series of propositions, one by one, in a series of cases, which substantially altered the law. I do not want in any way to leave anyone under a misapprehension if I try to state a series of rules quite briefly, but I do not believe I am misleading by asserting that in a wide class of cases the onus of proof has now shifted from the applicant to the Minister in cases where the entrant into the Forces was of good health when he went in and was of bad health when he came out—particularly classes of cases which cause the utmost suffering to the sufferer and are most difficult of treatment.
While that has been going on, medical opinion has also changed very substantially. If I may go on to something which does not really affect the disabled pensioners, I would refer to miners' nystagmus, which was thought to be due to idiopathic idiosyncrasy inherent in the individual and acquired at his birth. Now we have a body of opinion which shows that this may be due to environment, or to diet, or other causes. Miners' nystagmus is due to occupational and other reasons.
I have had to deal with a very great number of cases of variations of psychoneurosis, the type of tragic disease associated with the nervous system. Parkinson's disease is a classic example and the example which causes the most immediate problem. The position at the moment is that the sufferer from this dread disease, which usually means a progressive worsening of his condition, is unable to get adequate treatment and to find any institution available for him. He is unable usually to establish a case in the line of the old law, although I believe many of these cases which went down, could now be established if they could be taken to the Court of Appeal


again. What I am asking the Minister to say is this: as the welfare service is established and developed, its facilities will be available to any person who claims to be a disabled person after serving in the Forces, and who is suffering from one of these diseases, whether he has been granted a pension or not. Such a man is, perhaps, the man among all in most need of it.
I want the Minister to tell the House in more detail than we have been told previously, what institutional treatment is available for this class of case, what medical resources are available and how these men may have the limited resources which are now available. So far as Parkinson's disease is concerned, there is now a Parkinson's Club for the sufferers from that disease. We have also been told that medical research abroad is in advance of medical research in this country and that there is hope in the near future for these tragic sufferers.
That is the first point. The second grave question which I feel is of importance in this matter, and to which I want the Minister to apply his mind most seriously, is that there should be machinery by which a man, even if his appeal has been lost in the past, may now come back and re-submit his claim in view of the alterations of the law and the alterations of medical opinion. If he likes, there should be organisations established, but the Ministry should take powers to see that any appropriate case may have a full re-hearing, and a rehearing on its merits, in the light of present-day procedure.
I remember that on a previous occasion I quoted to the House the case of a man suffering from acute psycho-neurosis, who had been disallowed pension on the medical opinion that, because in his early days he was a man who was exceedingly conscientious in his profession, his very conscientiousness showed a predisposition to psycho-neurosis, because it indicated a peculiar type of mind. It is right that I should say that the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with that case with very real speed, that the pension was granted and that justice was done. However, it is a sample of the type of medical opinion with which sufferers can be confronted, and it gives a reason for a real review of cases, properly submitted

and considered, where a prima facie case for review is made. I hope the Minister will do that.
I congratulate him on what he has done since he has been in office, and on carrying on the traditions of his predecessor. I am not trying to make any party point here, but I think it is fair to say that we have seen many applications turned down in the past that are now being granted—rightly granted and properly granted. I hope my hon. Friend is going to continue that good work. I think the points that I have mentioned are of importance, and I hope he will do something about them.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I, too, am glad that this subject has been raised tonight. I think it right to say that, owing partly to the campaign waged up and down the country in the last few months on the subject of the increase of pensions, the country has now become Ministry of Pensions conscious. For many years that Ministry was the Cinderella of the Departments, but I think it is right to say that now it is assuming its proper place in the social service structure of the country. The fact that we have had a number of Debates and Questions on the subject of pensions since last July is an indication that we are giving now the right amount of consideration to all the problems affecting the disabled ex-Service men.
As to the topic of welfare officers, the Minister is aiming to bring the personal touch into operation in all his dealings with the disability pensioners. As he states in his Report, it is quite impossible to do the job properly by post. The amount of money that is given by way of pension is, of course, tremendously important, and we cannot over-rate it, but the welfare services and the positive hospital treatment, and so on, are equally important.
I should like to ask one or two questions about the appointment of welfare officers. For what qualifications does my hon. Friend look when making these appointments? Does he choose men of very wide experience, of very broad human sympathies and understanding, and men of great initiative? I rather gathered the impression that the welfare officers were


waiting to be contacted by the disability pensioners. In fact, they are instructed, according to this very admirable leaflet, to contact the welfare officers. I hope, however, that the welfare officers will not sit back in their regional offices, but make it their duty to seek out individual pensioners, rather than wait to be approached by the pensioners.
There is another matter that has not so far been mentioned. There are women pensioners and widows, and people responsible for orphans. They may have some diffidence in unburdening themselves to male welfare officers. I ask my hon. Friend whether he has considered the appointment of a woman welfare officer. I do not ask for one in each region, because, obviously, that would be asking too much; but if we could have one on a wandering commission up and down the country I think that that would be very beneficial.
It is most important, in my view, that the welfare officers should concern themselves, not only with seeing that the individual pensioner gets his due measure of financial aid, but that they should also make the pensioners aware of all the other services the Ministry can offer. It is most important that there should be a close follow-up of all pensioners after they have had hospital treatment. After prolonged hospital treatment, a pensioner may not be quite capable of adapting himself to the kind of life he is expected to lead after the treatment. In the hurly-burly of getting a living in an industrial town, for instance, unless he is properly looked after he may have a serious relapse, so that all benefit of the treatment he has received may be lost. I hope that one of the primary jobs of the welfare officers will be to follow up all those patients who have been in hospital.
I hope they will pay particular attention to the pensioners with artificial limbs. It is very difficult for a person with an artificial limb to go upstairs—to get on a bus, and so on. If his limb is not fitting properly and is causing discomfort, it is very hard for the pensioner to bear the discomfort and inconvenience. I hope that the welfare officers will take particular care of those people. They might even go so far as to approach local housing authorities to help in housing this class of pensioner. For instance, if a disability

pensioner is living in a house in which he has to go up and down many stairs to get to and from his room, and so on, it may be possible, and certainly worth while, by liaison with the housing authority, to arrange some kind of exchange of houses, so that the disability pensioner may have other accommodation more convenient to him.
Then I think that the welfare officers ought to look after with special care men who are suffering from some nervous complaint, who often are most chary of seeking help. They shut themselves up in a little world of their own and try to convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with them. Thus they often debar themselves from getting their just rewards and treatment. I think there is a case there for particular attention by the welfare officers. This work requires to be done by men of great tact and sympathy.
These welfare officers must be able to keep in close touch with the Ministry of Labour, so that all the benefits of the resettlement scheme and all the benefits of sheltered employment may be brought to the attention of those who are in need of those benefits. They must also keep in close touch with the Ministry of National Insurance, so that all the troubles that arise from overlapping benefits can be explained properly, and, where possible, smoothed out. They must keep in close touch with the Assistance Board, because there are many cases in which the Assistance Board can help, over and above what the men are getting by pension. Also, it is very important that they should keep in close and harmonious contact with all the voluntary bodies serving ex-Service men, whether the British Legion, B.L.E.S.M.A., S.S.A.F.A. or other similar organisations. All these duties will make the job of the welfare officers a full-time job, and we must be sure to have men and women of the highest calibre to do it.
Then there is the question of the war orphans. The orphans are the Minister's own special care. They have been left outside the scope of the Children's Act. There are about 5,000 of them, and I believe that most of them are boarded out with foster parents. It is most important that the care and training of these children should be properly looked after. That is a job for the welfare officers.


Any information my hon. Friend can give to the House on this matter will be welcomed.
Although we may disagree on the question of the rise in the basic rate, or on the question whether the Minister's policy in looking after specially hard cases is the right one or not—and I believe it is—I do not think that any of us can disagree that this new departure in his Department, this establishment of welfare officers, is a very good one. In conclusion, I would say that this is another sign of the human touch that has pervaded the Ministry of Pensions since this Government took office, and that I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us answers to all the points that have been raised in the Debate tonight.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles-Smith: I am sure that we all welcome the opportunity which this Adjournment Debate will give to hear a progress report on the work of the pension welfare officers. I can add nothing to the admirable account which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has given of the scope of the work of these officers, and the method which they must necessarily follow. They must, it is quite clear, view their job in a broad way and not allow themselves—as I am sure the Minister will not allow them—to be bound in any way by red tape or by a narrow conception of their functions. Anything which can be beneficial to the disabled pensioner must be within their province.
I believe that their work could be of particular value in the case of the ageing pensioners to whom the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby referred. I agree with what he said about the desirability of a special supplementary allowance in the case of ageing pensioners. It seems to me, from the relatively little that I have seen of this matter, that it is indisputable that there is a case for such an allowance. As age advances, inevitably the disablement which a man has suffered weighs with him year by year more heavily. The overwhelming majority of the pensioners of the 1914–18 war are now upwards of 50 years of age. Anyone who has discussed their problems with anyone with an intimate knowledge of them cannot

fail to realise that there are many among these 1914–18 pensioners who genuinely feel that the present provision does not fully meet their individual needs.
Many of them feel, for example, the necessity occasionally of taking a day off from work and to lay up because of their disabilities. Frequently they find it impossible to do this. A British Legion official of very considerable experience, with whom I have discussed this matter, has assured me that many times ageing pensioners have said to him how beneficial they would find it to be able to take a day's or two days' rest from work, but they feel, for one reason or another, they cannot do so. This is specially the case with the self-employed pensioner whose needs require a little more special consideration. It is in all these individual matters that the pension welfare officers can play a particularly useful part.
We must recognise, I am sure, that some of those, at any rate, who have been disabled have in the past suffered psychologically even more than physically. I do not wish in any sense to make a party point, but it appears to me that the Minister of Pensions today has to a large extent to try to rectify conditions which arise from the fact that provisions for the employment as well as for the pensions of disabled persons have not been adequate in the past. This has produced on the part of some pensioners an embitterment and a suspicion of almost any public authority.
One of the greatest ways in which the welfare officers can show their calibre is by their capacity to win the confidence of the most difficult cases with which they have to deal—the men who are reluctant to bring their difficulties to any public official. That is why I think that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees was particularly right in putting emphasis upon the desirability of maintaining contact with voluntary organisations, because very frequently they are able by their past services to secure the confidence of the pensioners to a very great degree. Therefore, I am sure that we all look forward this evening to hearing a fuller account of this most important service, and I feel sure that the Minister, from what has been said this evening, will be aware that on this side of the House at any rate, there is great appreciation of this new development


in the work of his Ministry, and great anxiety that it should not be in any way hampered by a shortage of men and women to do this important work.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) in what they have said about ageing pensioners—the point first raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby). I am glad to hear that the Minister is to make a statement about these ageing pensioners tonight. They are one of the categories who are very shy about bringing into the public eye their difficulties. Not only as they get older do they begin to suffer more than the normal person from the various disadvantages of age, but there is the further point that the normal man who is not disabled usually earns more as the years go on; but the basic rate of pension remains stable all the time. I feel that whatever view may be taken about the raising or otherwise of the basic rate, some rise would be reasonable as a man gets older.
Another category of persons who, I think, will be very greatly assisted by these welfare officers—another category incidentally who are very reluctant to parade their defects in the public eye—are the widows. We tend to forget sometimes that a very large number of the Ministry's beneficiaries at the moment are widows with young children. I have thought for a long time that there must be in the country large numbers of widows bringing up children, most of whom will now be of school age, who are trying to run a home, and who are doing their best for their children on a very small amount of money. A weekly sum in the region of £3 10s. for a woman with two children appears to be quite inadequate for the purpose. I myself have two children and I know, only too well, just what it means in bills for shoes and clothes alone at the present day.
I hope that these welfare officers will make it their business not only to look at cases of disabled men but to go also to the widows and find out how they are faring. Some of them may well be all right; I would not suggest for one moment that they are not certainly a lot

better off than they were 10 years ago. Nevertheless, this is a matter the welfare officers could do with very great effect.
A further point which I think is sometimes overlooked is the constant attendance allowance. This again is a matter which cannot possibly be decided as a whole. We cannot reach a general conclusion because each individual case is different. I have received not complaints but suggestions from men so badly disabled that they cannot dress themselves and do the ordinary things which a normal man can do for himself. I have heard the suggestion that the allowance of 20s. a week, which is the normal allowance, should, at any rate, be increased to 30s. The increased allowance of 40s. is only used in very serious cases and is not normal.
At the present time, when the Ministry of Pensions is doing so much, it is tempting to feel that the ordinary citizen has no real responsibility. I believe that the scope for voluntary work by the ordinary citizen and by other members of the British Legion—many of whom are at present doing a remarkable job, quite unostentatiously, in visiting pensioners and doing jobs for them—should continue, and indeed increase. I am thinking particularly of the performance of simple services for war pensioners.
Only a few weeks ago in my constituency I came across a man who is seriously disabled but able to get about. I spoke to him about his circumstances, and one thing he said was: "Whenever I want a job done about the house, a job which I could do myself if I had the use of my limbs, I have to get somebody in to do it for me. It is those small expenses which add to my liabilities." Surely that sort of job is one which any of his friends could do for him, if they thought about it. It is not that they are really thoughtless; it just does not occur to most of us until the facts are brought to our notice. I should not like anything to be said tonight which would tend to encourage people to think that the job of performing these personal services is being done by the Ministry of Pensions. These are matters which can only he done by those of us who have our full faculties still left to us.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I join with my hon. Friends and the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby)—who has played the part of a lone wolf on the Opposition benches for the greater part of this Debate—in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) for this opportunity to discuss the functions of these welfare officers.
First, I should like to ask one or two questions concerning this scheme; it has now been in operation for some five or six months, so I assume that the Minister can give some indication of how it is functioning. My first question is: how many welfare officers have been appointed in Scotland? Second: where are these welfare officers stationed in Scotland, and are any arrangements made whereby they can assist pensioners to meet expenses, which are sometimes apt to be rather heavy, when they call for an interview? In districts where the population is sparse and widely scattered the welfare officer can hardly be expected to visit the pensioner. At the same time, it is rather an expensive item for the pensioner to visit the welfare officer.
A good principle is always to act through the personal medium rather than through the medium of correspondence, because the results obtained from personal interviews are much better than those obtained from correspondence; one gets to understand the case in a much better way. Perhaps my hon. Friend would also tell us how the distribution of his special letter to pensioners, drawing their attention to the numerous benefits now available to them, is going. Does the number of applications for the various forms of supplementary assistance show any increase as a result of sending out this personal letter?
I should like to reinforce the plea made by two or three of my hon. Friends, that the welfare officers should co-operate not only with the various Government organisations, such as the Ministries of Labour and of National Insurance and the National Assistance Board, but also with ex-Service men's organisations. I have had some experience of acting as an almoner for an ex-Service men's organisation, and it is true to say that a number of these organisations are prepared to assist individuals to get on their feet by making very considerable grants—grants of a size which

I think the Minister would not be able to make; I do not know, but I do not think he could do that. Certainly ex-Service men's benevolent organisations would much sooner give money for the purpose of establishing the future of an ex-Service man than merely dispersing it in the form of charitable assistance to helping the fellow over the next week or two, not knowing what the future might hold. Most organisations would be only too keen to do that.
The noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stanford touched on a very important question in referring to the problem of the ageing disabled pensioner. Anyone who is associated with disabled persons knows that after a certain age—and it is a much younger age than in the case of those possessing all their faculties—a disabled person begins to feel the wear and tear of life. There are two ways in which the ageing disabled pensioner can be helped. First, he can he helped financially. At present, of course, he can have his final award reviewed and increased. I do not know to what extent that does help towards solving this problem, but I do think that the suggestions made tonight for some further consideration of how financial assistance could be given should be borne in mind. Whether or not it could be done by a different approach, such as through the medium of hardship allowances I am not certain, but I suggest that the Minister might consider basing the hardship allowance not merely on the degree to which a man is disabled, together with a comparison of the job he is doing with the job he did before disablement, but also in some way on age. An approach along those lines might assist in solving this problem.
The second way of helping the ageing disabled pensioner is to give him a lighter job. The crux of the solution is to know some time ahead that the disabled man is getting too old for the job he is performing. I do not know whether that could be done through the welfare officers. If the pensioner could say to a welfare officer: "Look here, I am getting on in years, and next year or the year after I shall have to chuck this job, and I shall want another," perhaps the welfare officer could look around to try to find a lighter job for that man. That would help towards solving the difficulty. I believe that the problem of the ageing disabled man must be


tackled along those lines. We want the best possible for these men who have given of their best for us. I am confident that the Minister will try to do that, and anything that he can do in this direction will, I feel sure, be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

6.50 p.m.

Commander Pursey: I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) on having been fortunate enough to raise this matter at such an early hour so that many Members on this side of the House can take part in this Debate, thereby showing the interest on the Government side in this matter, as compared with the Opposition side, from which we have heard only one of the three Members present make a speech. The appointment of these welfare officers marks an entirely new development in the organisation of the Ministry. It is something that ought to have been done 20 years ago. We now have the Ministry of Pensions officially out to help those who are entitled to receive pensions. Previously, we have had certain ex-Service organisations—and I am not going to criticise any of them, or mention any by name, or throw any stones into the placid waters of this Debate—and certain other organisations that have made a corner, so to speak, in this information, creating the impression that if anyone wants a pension or an allowance it is necessary to go to them. It is time that this bubble was pricked.
By far the greater number of people could have got pensions and allowances by applying directly to the Ministry of Pensions. The strange thing is that 30 years after the first world war, and three years after the second war, so many pensioners do not know what they are entitled to.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that very often when a pensioner has been refused a pension and has gone to an ex-Service men's organization—and I speak as a member of the British Legion in Scotland—he has had assistance in getting his claim pressed with the Ministry?

Commander Pursey: The hon. and gallant Member will be able to make a speech of his own.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I am correcting the hon. and gallant Member.

Commander Pursey: There is no question of correcting me, because I have said nothing that is incorrect. If the hon. and gallant Member will take his mind back to the period just after the first world war, he will agree that if the pensions then awarded had been at the rate and magnitude they are today, and if Members of Parliament had then done their job, there would have been no reason for these ex-Service men's organisations to take part in this work. That is my answer to the hon. and gallant Member.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: There is, of course, work other than pensions work done by these organisations. There is a great deal done by way of distributing voluntary help to some of the worst cases. I think everyone agrees that the administration of pensions schemes cannot deal with the special cases which need help, and that there is still room for voluntary and charitable work.

Commander Pursey: I wish that the noble Lord had registered what I said. I said that I was not going to mention any organisations by name, nor did I wish to disturb the placid waters, although the placid waters have now been disturbed by interruptions.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: The hon. and gallant Member was talking about what happened just after the first war, but I am concerned with what happened after—and during—the last war. Within my personal knowledge, on many occasions the British Legion in Scotland has assisted persons, whose pension claims have been turned down by the Ministry, to get their pensions. I ought to know, because I am on the National Executive Council of the Legion.

Commander Pursey: If the hon. and gallant Member can only show patience I shall deal with that point. The question is why these unofficial organisations should be doing an official job. I agree with the noble Lord that these organisations still do a lot of other things, but that is outside the scope of this Debate. These welfare officers will take away the work that these unofficial bodies ought not to have been doing and will develop that work. As far as the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for West


Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) is concerned, it does not follow that these organisations were the only ones to take up cases that had been turned down by the Ministry. Similar cases have been taken up and won by Members of Parliament and other organisations. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member, because of his youth, does not know what happened after the first world war. It may be that he does not appreciate that the trade unions, among other organisations, have won a lot of these cases. We have the position today of unofficial organisations appealing to the country for funds, and getting millions of pounds which they have been frittering away in organisation, staffing, salaries and so on, to do a job which the Ministry of Pensions and the welfare officers will do in the future. That is a definite advantage both to the pensioners and to the State.
Since 5th July, we have had National Insurance and National Health schemes, as well as other social security measures, and I hope that the Minister will discuss with his Cabinet colleagues responsible for these schemes the question of setting up official citizens advice bureaux in the town halls of every city and town where the Service pensioners and civil pensioners can go for information about official and unofficial schemes. These unofficial organisations that have grown up on the backs of the ex-Service men ought never to have been engaged on this work, and if these official advice bureaux are set up there will be co-ordination of all these schemes with everyone getting his entitlement. It will mean that there will be no reason for these mammoth unofficial organisations to do this work.
Today the ex-Service man and his wife and family are better off, actually and relatively to the cost of living, than they have ever been before, and the majority of them quite frankly admit it. The Government and the Ministry should consider improvements in allowances and other things, which have been mentioned by hon. Members on this side, other than the basic rates of pension, which is a satisfactory foundation on which to build. We welcome the development of this welfare organisation, and we hope that the Ministry will increase the number of the officers and the scope of their work so

that the pensioners will get their full entitlement according to the regulations.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I had no intention of making a speech this evening, but after the deplorable observations of the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) I must say something in defence of some of the great voluntary ex-Service men's organisations which exist in this country. I do not know what the position of the ex-Service men would have been had it not been for the vigilance of these public-spirited citizens who have done so much during the past few years. Heaven help the ex-Service man if he had to rely entirely on officialdom. This idea that help can only come to these men through a town council or a municipality is fundamentally wrong.
Many members of the present Government, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, have commended the enterprise and system of voluntary help given by one section of the community to the other, and it seems to a great many people that these ex-Service men's organisations are doing a most valuable service. It is simply deplorable to suggest that their functions should be removed and put into the hands of a soulless bureaucracy already over-burdened through trying to carry out too many ill-considered Acts of Parliament.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. M. F. Titterington: I should not like to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman too far in his observations for I do not wish to see any truculence introduced into the Debate. I am intervening as a civilian. The interchange of views makes it look as if my Service colleagues were truculently disposed when we are supposed to be pacific in dealing with the question under review. The remark about "a soulless bureaucracy" casts an aspersion upon administrative organisations and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must take responsibility in that regard. There is ample scope and opportunity for voluntary organisations to exercise their functions in every possible way.
I intervene only to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions. In regard to pensions generally, I have been privileged to be interviewed by ex-Service


men's organisations in my constituency, and I must frankly say that I have not exchanged any bitter words with them in any shape or form. I have always given the assurance that we would seek to promote the interests of the ex-Service men and to advance them as far as possible under present-day circumstances to a much better position. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has stated that he is prepared to look at this matter objectively and to meet it as far as is possible.
With regard to supplementary grants, it is my view that these have not been broadcast enough for the information of the general public. Not only should my right hon. Friend express this information in various ways, some of which he has done, but there is nothing to prevent information about these supplementary grants being exhibited in post offices, where they will become common knowledge. The second point I wish to make is to ask the welfare officers to co-ordinate more closely the work of my hon. Friend's Department with the local authorities, the National Assistance Board, and the voluntary organisations. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) spoke about "a soulless bureaucracy" but I would remind him that there is "a soulful democracy" in this country and it is behind the administration of this Government. I am sure my hon. Friend will express it.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: It may be that in some Departments of State one meets a soulless bureaucracy, but we can say that that is not so today with the Ministry of Pensions. In my constituency is situated the old town of Nantwich, and the President of the branch of the British Legion there is Colonel Cross, D.S.O., a distinguished soldier. At the annual meeting of his branch he said that since the advent of this Government the office at Manchester had completely changed. I want to add my tribute to that office. Colonel Cross said that he found helpfulness and humanity there and particularly the right kind of approach.
I rise to ask a question about the functions of the welfare officer. The welfare officer may conceive his functions to be the administration of the scheme and the benefits under it. I

wonder if my right hon. Friend would encourage the welfare officers to go beyond that. In view of the experience that they have through interviewing pensioners and through intimate relationships with these cases, would he encourage them to report back to him upon the state of pensioners in cases of hardship or anything which may arise, so that we may see carried out the promise we have given to these people that, although we are not supporting their request for an increase in the basic pension, we shall do everything in our power to see that special allowances are met as quickly as possible. Would the Minister, in encouraging the welfare officers to pass on that kind of information to him, also suggest that they might discover what is the state of the pensioner, his home, his children and so form a link which will not only help the Minister but also Members of Parliament.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: There are one or two points I should like to put about the functions of the welfare officers. It has already been suggested that they should co-operate with the local ex-Service associations. Might I ask the Minister to consider asking these men to go out of their way to meet if necessary these organisations, and at special meetings review the whole situation and explain the point of view of the Ministry.
I suggest that, because there is an abysmal ignorance on the subject of pensions. The British Limbless ex-Service Men's Association have made a number of concrete suggestions which ought to be dealt with very soon. There are questions of travelling allowances, the position of the man who has lost an arm but does not wear an artificial limb and so on. It is obvious when the matter is considered that he should be entitled to clothing allowances, though he does not get any now. Welfare officers are very appropriate channels for bringing firsthand information of individual cases. I should also like to suggest that they should have regular conferences together and they should pool their information so that they can make the best use of one another's experience. In my constituency of Preston we have some energetic and excellent ex-Service men's organisations, and this important link in the chain will be welcomed by all.

7.9 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): Like all the hon. Members who have spoken, I am very glad that this Debate has taken place tonight, and that we have had more time for it than we expected. In consequence of that the Debate has ranged rather widely, and I do not feel that I can deal in detail with all the points that have been made if I am to satisfy the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds), who referred to the welfare service and suggested that an account should be given of it. Therefore, I can say little if anything about the subject raised by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who spoke about the cases which had been decided on appeal. With all respect, that speech would have been more appropriate to the Debate we had earlier today or on the Second Reading of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill.
All I would say about that is that, fortunately, today we have a National Health Service, and that men whose disabilities have been found not to be attributable to or aggravated by war service but who nevertheless have severe disabilities, can take advantage of the National Health Service; and, further, that National Health Service patients are now admitted, wherever appropriate, to the hospitals of the Ministry of Pensions. It does not seem to me to matter terribly with which hand the Government are assisting these disabled men as long as the disabled men are assisted. We shall certainly do all in our power to look after National Health Service patients who may be appropriately admitted to our hospitals to take advantage of our specialised services.
Nor do I propose to say anything about the children's service which we operate for war orphans. That service was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). I said something about that last July, and I do not propose to repeat it tonight. Suffice it to say that so excellent has the service been throughout the years that the Curtis Committee could find no fault whatever with it. That service was excepted from the Children's Act for that very reason. We have been operating all these years an admirable children's service which is manned by specially selected children's officers of the very highest

quality, and the fact that never by any chance whatsoever has one received a single complaint about the service is proof that it is going well. I take as much personal interest in it as I can, and I am very well satisfied with it. I should be glad to let any hon. Members who are interested to know more about it at any time they like.
Nor can I say anything, I am afraid, about the question of widows. Suffice it to say that both in the children's service and in dealing with widows, we appoint women officers. A widow who wishes to go to one of our officers to discuss her allowance or any other problem which she may have will be met by a sympathetic woman officer who will discuss the matter with her in complete privacy. That is not part of the welfare service which I shall describe but it is an existing fact that there are women officers in all our offices dealing with the widows' and the children's service.
I now come more particularly to the welfare service proper about which it was not possible to include much information in the 23rd Report of my Department which contains ample information about all the other points raised tonight, particularly the scale of allowances and how the allowances compare with before the war. The welfare service was established because my immediate predecessor and I thought that the contacts between the Department and the pensioner were too remote and too cold. For quite good administrative reasons, between the wars the Department had become very centralised and there was a danger in consequence that it might lose touch with the individual. We found from our own correspondence that far too many of the war disabled simply do not know of the ways in which we can help them—by treatment or by supplements to their pensions, by grants towards the education of their children, and by helping them, with the aid of the Ministry of Labour, to find suitable employment and to undergo rehabilitation.
Successive Ministers of Pensions have been very grateful to the voluntary members of the war pensions committees. These committees consist of men and women in all parts of the country who have willingly given their time to help the war disabled and their dependents. The value of their work has been praised


many times and has from time to time received public recognition by awards of honours by His Majesty. The work is still going on, and I want to make it quite clear that I fully appreciate the value of that work, that there is still room for it, that it is still going on and that it is still valued. Perhaps I might also say in passing that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Titterington) in his remarks about the value of the voluntary organisations. There is still room for these organisations also. I assure the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackle-ton) that my welfare officers are constantly in touch with the voluntary organisations. It is definitely part of their job to keep in touch with the voluntary organisations.
As far as the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association is concerned, the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby), who is an active member of that organisation, knows that I have already dealt with some of the suggestions which have been put forward by it and that the 30s. constant attendance allowance, which the association suggested, has now been accepted and is already in payment, and that the point it raised about the clothing allowance for men who do not wear an artificial arm has also been dealt with to their satisfaction. We are in touch with these organisations all the time both centrally and in the districts.
I want to make it quite clear that the initiation of a welfare service is not a derogation from the work of volunteers but it was necessary to appoint a full-time officer who is himself a member of the staff of the Department because he can help in a variety of ways which are not open to the volunteer. He is also of particular value when it comes to helping the pensioner in his relation with other Government departments. A man who is himself an official of one department knows the ropes of the organisation as it were, and can lift the telephone and get into contact with the right man in another Department who can deal with the case when it falls outside the responsibilities of the Ministry of Pensions. I was asked what sort of people have been appointed to these posts. They are men who have volunteered from within the

department because of their special interest in this type of work. They have been very carefully selected from a large number of volunteers. They have received training, and what I go on to say will, I hope, prove that they are doing splendid work.
There is a welfare officer at every one of our hospitals. Their job is to help the patient with any personal problems which may arise while he is there but especially, of course, to help him before he leaves the hospital in that very difficult period, which any of us who have ever suffered severe illnesses know about, when we feel uneasy and unsure in getting back into the normal world. The interviews which our welfare officer gives at the hospital are entirely voluntary, but the patients are very ready to make use of the service. For example, I found that in the four weeks between 24th September and 23rd October, 1,936 pensioners in hospitals sought interviews and had a total of 2,632 interviews. In about one-third of the cases arising in the hospitals, the welfare officer can help by dealing with matters which are entirely within the control of the Ministry. The biggest bulk of these involves treatment, and the welfare officer sees to it that the pensioner requiring treatment who leaves the hospital and goes back to his house is provided with that treatment and that appropriate arrangements are made.
Large numbers of other questions arise concerning allowances, clothing grants and so on. If they are outside our own responsibility, the welfare officers, even at the hospital stage, make contacts with the appropriate authority, whether it is the Ministry of National Insurance, the National Assistance Board, the Ministry of Food, the Board of Trade, local authorities or voluntary organisations. About four out of 10 of the interviews which are given, both in the hospitals and in the regions, are found to produce matters on which some action can be taken.

Commander Maitland: Could the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how a disabled man in a district realises that the officer is available? I took the opportunity of trying to explain what we know of the system to the disabled men in my constituency and then found that it was difficult for them to


get into touch. Is the coming of the officer advertised in any way so that people know about it?

Mr. Marquand: Having dealt with hospitals, I was going on to deal with the officers in the districts, and I will do so in a moment. For a long time we have had the welfare service in the hospitals, but six months ago it was extended to all pensioners, the vast majority of whom are not in hospital but living at home and mostly working. When I last spoke to the House on the matter there were 25 welfare officers, but there are now 50 altogether at our local offices in all parts of the country. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) will be interested to know that there are six in Scotland. At most of the local offices there are two, at some there is only one, and to date they have interviewed approximately 54,000 pensioners living at home.
So far—with an exception which I will mention later—the interviews have arisen when pensioners have come to the office in the normal course. As the House knows, men are surveyed medically once every two years, and they have to visit the office for that purpose. We began the service by interviewing men when they came in that way, or when they came in on some other business such as the payment of allowance. Gradually we shall extend the service so that we can go out to men who do not have to come into the office. I should say, in passing, that men who come into the office, having been called in for a purpose, receive payment of their expenses. In time we shall develop the business of visiting towns in which we have no offices, and we shall be able to do that with the co-operation of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who have kindly promised to place a room in their offices at our disposal for this purpose when we are able to extend the service.

Mr. Collins: Can my hon. Friend say whether these welfare officers can act in the capacity of pensioner's friend, and visit in their own homes pensioners who cannot go to a local office and who feel rather shut off and in need of a visit from a welfare officer?

Mr. Scholefield Allen: And would not my hon. Friend consider that the Ministry

of National Insurance offices now opened all over the country would perhaps be more appropriate places, or provide extra places?

Mr. Marquand: That may be so. Visits are made by welfare officers to patients in their homes at the present time, but in view of the number of welfare officers and pensioners, visits of that kind, unless specially called for, are not frequent. I have already mentioned the work done by the war pensions committees, and one of the most effective aspects of that work is by way of visits made by members of the war pensions committees to bedridden pensioners and others who cannot leave their homes.
The aim of all these interviews is that we can afford the pensioner an opportunity of a chat with a wise, well-in-formed and entirely discreet friend who knows all the ropes of our modern, complicated society and can help the pensioner to find his way about among the numerous agencies and regulations and requirements that exist. I want to stress that the interviews are entirely voluntary. Nobody is obliged to see the welfare officer if he does not want to do so. I think the service is appreciated because I have received a large number of letters from pensioners about it. I had it in mind to quote some of those, but I do not want to take up too much time. However, it happened that this morning I received one which I am permitted to read. It said:
Recently I received a letter from you inviting me to have an interview with your Mr. —, Welfare Officer, with whom I had a very pleasant and helpful chat.
Sir. I beg to take this opportunity to express my very grateful thanks for everything that has been done on my behalf by you and members of your staff who I have had the pleasure to meet during my visit to your offices.
Everybody has been most kind and helpful and to me it is very comforting to know that as a disabled ex-Service man I am able to receive such kind attention and helpful advice at any time I may need such advice.
That letter is typical of a great many we receive.
As I said, about four out of 10 of the interviews discover matters in which help can be given. Whereas in the hospital interviews a third of the matters raised are within the province of my Department, two-thirds affect other Departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations. In the interviews in


the districts, the reverse is the case; about two-thirds concern my own Department and one-third the others, proving what I have referred to already, as have other hon. Members, the fact that all we are able to do for pensioners in the way of treatment and allowances is not known. One great value of this service is that it is making those things known, and known rapidly.
The information given by the individual about himself is treated in the strictest confidence. If it is divulged, it is only with his consent so that help can be given to him. I must emphasise strongly, in view of what the hon. Member for Cambridge said, that the information gathered at the interview with the welfare officer is not used in any way whatever in assessing his rate of pension. It is, of course, used for the purpose of examining his elegibility for special allowances, like unemployability supplement or the special hardship allowance to make up for lessened earning capacity The assessment of pensioners is made always entirely on medical grounds.
The welfare officers, then, are able to help in this way. I will read some examples from the periodical reports I get:
Welfare officer made successful representations to Scottish Local Authority on behalf of pensioner who had received notice of eviction from house.
Pensioner had been given no priority on housing list, but on representations by Welfare Officer the Local Housing Authority granted four points out of a maximum of five.
A 1914 World War pensioner was advised on medical grounds by an examining doctor that he should change his occupation which pensioner was reluctant to do owing to his age. Welfare Officer and Disablement Resettlement Officer made persistent efforts for three months which resulted in a very satisfactory post for the man who visited the Regional Office specially to voice his gratitude.
I had better not quote all the examples I could produce of the intimate, personal, kindly acts which the welfare officers have been able to perform for pensioners.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees mentioned treatment and rehabilitation, because many of the problems presented by pensioners in their interviews involve rehabilitation. In order to improve our work in this field, I have just appointed a specialist medical rehabilitation officer.
That is a new appointment altogether. Such a post has not previously existed in the Department. I have been fortunate in securing the services of a young man fresh from valuable rehabilitation work with the Army. He will act as a link between the work of our hospitals and that of our regional offices. He will review all the occupational therapy work done in the hospitals; he will discuss with and advise welfare officers in the hospitals and in the regional offices on the most suitable forms of occupational therapy and employment; he will, of course, pay particular attention to cases of special difficulty such as men suffering from nervous trouble 'o whom allusion was made tonight. Needless to say, he will kept in very close touch with the Ministry of Labour and its disabled persons branch, as do all our regional offices.
The dividing line between our responsibility and that of the Ministry of Labour occurs just at that point. Although we are responsible for a certain amount of preliminary rehabilitation, after that work is done the man passes to the care of the Ministry of Labour, who have their disablement resettlement officers and who send the pensioners to Government training centres or submit them to employment after finding jobs which are suitable for them

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask the Minister who has the final say about this? The hospital staff have the man under their care and attention and curative treatment for some time, then this special rehabilitation expert comes along and makes recommendations. It is rather important to know who makes the final recommendation. The medical people might have strong views about whether a recommendation from a rehabilitation officer was right or wrong. If he is entitled to override them there might be some difficulty.

Mr. Marquand: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member means by "recommendation." If he means a recommendation of a job for the pensioner, that would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour D.R.O. If he means a recommendation, not for a particular job but of the general type and kind of work, then, obviously, the advice of my specialist officer would, I assume and hope, be the determining factor. He would give that advice to the D.R.O., to


whom he would say, "In this particular man's circumstances I think you should look for such and such a type of work for him." The D.R.O. will be guided by the general and medical advice in finding a particular job. Of course, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) knows very well, especially in the sort of district he represents, the matching of the two is not always easy; but we do our best and this work will develop.
After the welfare service had been operating for about three months I decided to make a special effort to get into touch through it with the ageing pensioners of the 1914–18 war.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He has given us a glowing description of the work which the welfare officers are doing. They are undoubtedly doing an exceptional job, but there seems a danger that they may now become overloaded. It would be useful, for the sake of his own welfare officers, if the hon. Gentleman could give us some dividing line as to where their responsibility ends. If, for instance, a local branch of the British Legion or a Member of Parliament has a difficult case for investigation, should contact be made with the welfare officer, with the ordinary regional office, as before, or with the Department. There are many cases where welfare officers may deal with cases better than does the Department, but we do not want to overwork them.

Mr. Marquand: I quite agree. I am very sensible of the danger that they may become overworked. We must see that they are provided with the necessary clerical and other assistance as the volume of their work and their records grows. I do not know that it is possible to give a definite dividing line—to lay down a set of rules, as it were—about what matters should be referred to them. In general, I should prefer that if hon. Members wish to refer constituents to my offices—I certainly would be very glad if they would, for, obviously, there are large numbers of cases where the whole matter could be settled successfully locally and where reference to myself would not really be necessary; I should prefer hon. Members to advise constituents to go to the local office without

saying particularly whom they should see. Then, according to the nature of the case, it could be channelled safely and satisfactorily to the right person in the local office.
I was going on to say that once this service had been well established and had got into its stride, I thought it was a good thing to use it as a means of getting in touch with ageing pensioners. I and everyone in the Department was sensible of the fact that in this direction lay some of the most difficult problems. Therefore, even before sending out the letter which is now being dispatched to all pensioners, I had special letters sent out in each district to a selected number of 1914–18 war pensioners inviting them to come for interview.
The awards of pension to men who served and incurred their disability in that war were made final long ago. Their right of appeal against an assessment was long ago exhausted. Yet, in some instances, advancing age brings a worsening of the disability. Fortunately, despite the statutory finality of the award and the absence now of any right of appeal, I have power to re-assess their disability under special sanction, where it can be shown that it has materially worsened. Between 1945 and today, under these powers, the disabilities of 2,400 pensioners of the 1914–18 war have been re-assessed and increased. A much larger number than that, of course, has been looked at. At first sight that number may appear comparatively small, but when I tell the House that over 1,000 of these re-assessments and increases have been made since I took office last July, it will be appreciated that the rate of reviewing these cases is obviously increasing.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my hon. Friend give the actual number of cases referred to him which have not been successful?

Mr. Marquand: No. We have not kept a special record of the numbers of 1914–18 cases which have been looked at again during the years. We have, of course, the records of those where re-assessment has resulted in increase of pension. I want to make it quite clear that re-assessment can be made only where a medical board is satisfied that a disability has materially worsened. As I have said, the numbers are not great, but the rate of


increase is fairly considerable. I do not want to overstate the position, but it is clear that it is in line with our general policy of increasing payments where need is proved rather than of making some wide general increase which would include large numbers where need does not exist. I was grateful for the suggestion made tonight that the Assistance Board might draw the attention of my welfare officers to instances of disabled men who have had to resort to them. It does not lie within my power to say that that will be put into operation, but I will draw it to the attention of the Minister of National Insurance, who I am sure will be interested in it and at once consider its practicability.
The interviews are voluntary and I am sending out a letter to all pensioners informing them of the supplements which are available and inviting them to see the welfare officer if they wish to do so. What will probably happen is that in consequence those most in need will come forward and ask for help and those who are happily situated will not feel it necessary to seek help. Therefore, any general conclusion we draw from the interviews will not provide a fair picture of all the pensioners. Any general conclusions we draw will be biased, in the strictly statistical sense of the word, in favour of pessimism. It cannot be a fair example, but a biased sample, biased in favour of pessimism. We have not yet covered a sufficiently large proportion of the total number of pensioners to be able to draw firm conclusions, but I can safely say that within a couple of months we shall know far more generally about the disabled than has ever been known before. Although the circumstances of the individual will not be disclosed, it will be possible to draw general conclusions about categories before very long.
I was asked if I would extend this welfare service to men who incurred disability between the wars and are a special responsibility of the Service Ministers. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind what I said earlier today and on the Second Reading of the Pensions Appeals Tribunals Bill, namely, that in these cases we cannot take responsibility for appeals against decisions on pension claims. Apart from that, if we can help we will do so. Again this is not a matter within my responsibility and I must refer the

suggestion to my right hon. Friends responsible for the Service Departments. I will do that with a sympathetic indication of my willingness to help if I can—

Mr. Symonds: Is the Minister prepared to say that these men whose pensions are administered direct by the Service Departments can apply to the welfare officer, at any rate for advice?

Mr. Marquand: I would rather say that I will consult my right hon. Friends. There may be some unsuspected snag of which I am not aware at the moment and I do not want to make any promise I cannot fulfil. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friends to that suggestion to see whether it can be put into operation. I think I have said enough to explain to the House in greater detail than has been explained already exactly how the welfare service operates. When I said some time ago that the Government were proud of their record in the field of pensions I was accused by one newspaper of complacency. I am not complacent, although I am glad to proclaim the numerous improvements which the present Government have made in the system. I do not deny that there is room for further improvement and, with my welfare officers, I am seeking all possibilities of further improvement that lie within my power and I thank the House for giving me their courteous attention tonight.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I wish to draw attention to a gap which I think still exists. The hon. Gentleman has rightly paid great tribute to the voluntary organisations affected by these problems, which are very real, but I feel there was a gap in what he said as to the use which can be made of the voluntary organisations by the welfare officers and of the welfare officers by the voluntary organisations.
There must be an interchange of information and help. We know that most of the voluntary organisations keep themselves as fully aware of terms, conditions, problems and regulations as they can, but we also know that, with the extraordinary complications of modern life, it is very difficult for those acting for the voluntary organisations to keep informed of all the problems on which they are asked to give advice. It


would be very helpful if, apart from any circular letters sent to individuals or welfare officers, a more direct approach were made by the Minister to the voluntary organisations urging them by district, area, or county, or any other means he cares to suggest, to organise meetings as soon as possible so that not only can individuals make themselves known to each other, but also that there should be a complete interchange of information.
I know that is what the Minister wants, but I am a little doubtful whether, with all his good intentions, he is going about it strongly enough. I have a feeling that unless we are careful, we shall overwork these welfare officers especially in the next few months. While the system is being built up, these officers might make valuable use of the intimate knowledge possessed by the welfare organisations and I should like to know how it is proposed that that should be achieved. It is certain that the Minister and I are aiming at the same thing, but I want him to take stronger steps to achieve that aim than those he has suggested.
There is a grave danger that where we have big voluntary organisations which

have to absorb a great deal of official information, when that information is passed on to the individual it will be in a too final form. If welfare officers are overworked that is one of the grave dangers we shall face. However well-intentioned an individual may be, if he is pressed for time, he looks on a case merely as a case, instead of a problem for a human being. Once that occurs, the whole prestige and value of the service—which is a very fine one—will be undermined. I ask the Minister to take active steps to prevent any damage being done to this new service while it is growing and, in order to achieve that end, to see to it that there is the closest possible liaison and interchange of information between welfare officers and organisations.

Mr. Titterington: In addition to the admirable policy of advising the pensioners of the circumstances to which the Minister has referred, is there any merit in the proposal I made that he should publicise all the respective allowances at post offices?

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Eight o'Clock.